Philosophy Thread

Discussion in 'TT - Public' started by Robotnick, Nov 6, 2016.

  1. Robotnick

    Robotnick Well-Known Member Typed

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2016
    Posts:
    370
    Thanks Received:
    310
    I watched this vid about Heidegger about 3 years ago. Couldn't understand most of it. Just watched it a few days ago and now I can understand a lot more. Heidegger was a Melon with a metaphysical need. I think in this way he is somewhat similar to Koanic in this regard.

    Celebritytypes.com lists him as an ISTJ along with Freud and Thomas Hobbes.

    Jonathan Bowden was a British right-winger who made many other discourses on famous thinkers. Various discourses of his are on youtube. Sadly he died sometime a few years ago.
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  2. Thalmoses

    Thalmoses Founder Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Posts:
    2,229
    Thanks Received:
    558
    I suspect you have to read him psychogeometrically shifted to extreme mid-conehead. Polar opposite to e.g. Nietzsche.
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  3. Robotnick

    Robotnick Well-Known Member Typed

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2016
    Posts:
    370
    Thanks Received:
    310
    Yeah, that would seem to make sense.

    Nietzsche and Heidegger were both disgusted with modernity, but they had different approaches metaphysics.

    What does "e.g." mean?

    [Edit] Ah it means "for example" basically.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2016
  4. Vejiortan

    Vejiortan Geheimrat Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2016
    Posts:
    2,304
    Thanks Received:
    1,196
    That's one of the points where the models break down. In order to assess his mental type, someone has to understand his philosophy.

    Calling a philosopher who takes his work more serious than anything else, carefully weights each word he says and prefers a life on the countryside a "melon" is highly problematic, since the category "melon" includes all those who take power more serious than anything else, use language mainly as a tool for social competition (word-fencing) and prefer a life in the city/within elite circles.


    Here's something Greng Johnson wrote:

    "
    Heidegger was a legendary teacher, renowned both for the insightfulness and originality of what he said and the spell-bindingly charismatic way he said it. His most eminent students have recorded their impressions. Hans-Georg Gadamer writes:

    It is impossible to exaggerate the drama of Heidegger’s appearance in Marburg. Not that he was out for sensation. His appearance in the lecture hall certainly had something of a guaranteed effectiveness to it, but the unique thing about his person and his teaching lay in the fact that he identified himself fully with his work and radiated from that work. Because of him the lecture format became something totally new. It was no longer the “lesson presentation” of a professor who put his essential energy into research and publication.

    The “great book” monologues lost their priority of place because of Heidegger. What he provided was the full investment of his energy, and what brilliant energy it was. It was the energy of a revolutionary thinker who himself visibly shrank from the boldness of his increasingly radical questions and who was so filled with the passion of his thinking that he conveyed to his listeners a fascination that was not to be broken. . . . Who among those who then followed him can forget the breathtaking swirl of questions that he developed in the introductory hours of the semester for the sake of entangling himself in the second or third of these questions and then, in the final hours of the semester, rolling up the deep-dark clouds of sentences from which the lightning flashed to leave us half stunned? (Hans-Georg Gadamer, Philosophical Apprenticeships, trans. Robert R. Sullivan [Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985])

    Hannah Arendt had a similar experience:

    . . . Heidegger’s “fame” predates by about eight years the publication of Sein und Zeit (Being and Time) in 1927; indeed it is open to question whether the unusual success of this book—not just the immediate impact it had inside and outside the academic world but also its extraordinarily lasting influence, with which few of the century’s publications can compare—would have been possible if it had not been preceded by the teacher’s reputation among the students, in whose opinion, at any rate, the book’s success merely confirmed what they had known for many years.

    There was something strange about this early fame, stranger perhaps than the fame of Kafka in the early Twenties or of Braque and Picasso in the preceding decade, who were also unknown to what is commonly understood as the public and nevertheless exerted an extraordinary influence. For in Heidegger’s case there was nothing tangible on which his fame could have been based, nothing written, save for notes taken at his lectures which circulated among students everywhere. These lectures dealt with texts that were generally familiar; they contained no doctrine that could have been learned, reproduced, and handed on. There was hardly more than a name, but the name traveled all over Germany like the rumor of the hidden king. (Hannah Arendt, “Martin Heidegger at Eighty,” New York Review of Books, October 21, 1971)

    Leo Strauss also found Heidegger immensely impressive:

    One of the unknown young men in Husserl’s entourage was Heidegger. I attended his lecture course from time to time without understanding a word, but sensed that he dealt with something of the utmost importance to man as man. I understood something on one occasion: when he interpreted the beginning of the Metaphysics. I had never heard nor seen such a thing — such a thorough and intensive interpretation of a philosophic text. On my way home I visited Rosenzweig and said to him that compared to Heidegger, Max Weber, till then regarded by me as the incarnation of the spirit of science and scholarship, was an orphan child. (Leo Strauss, “A Giving of Accounts,” Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures in Modern Jewish Thought, ed. Kenneth Hart Green [Albany: SUNY Press, 1997], p. 461)"

    So his charisma had to do with his intense interest in, and even love for, his work.
    Also note that he was regarded as a strange eccentric by actual melons within the german bureaucratic hierarchy, and he wasn't actually compatible with those hierarchies (which is why, instead of having a great career under the nacio-socio leadership, he resigned from his position as head of freiburg university in 1934).

    Also, he had a little hut (without water installations for many years) on the countryside, where he wrote several of his works.
    "My whole work [...] is supported and led by this world of mountains and peasants [...] as soon as I climb up once again, within the first couple of hourse of living in the hut, the whole universe of previous questions imposes itself in the same way as I had left it. I simply tune in the natural frequency of the work and I don't have power over its hidden law."

    "This is my work environment [...] I actually don't [deliberately] look at the landscape, [but] I experience its hourly, day-nightly change in the great ebb and flow of the seasons. The heaviness of the mountains and the hardness of the primary rock, the slow growth of the fir trees, the bright and plain magnificence of the blooming pastures, the noise of the mountain river in an autumn night, the strict simplicity of snovy plains, all of this resonates through the simple life up there. [...] the course/process of the work remains immersed in the events of the lansdcape - When, in the depths of a winter's night, a snow storm [...] rages around the hut, cloaking everything, the great time of philosophy has arrived.
    Her [philosophy] questions have to be simple and essential then. The thinking through of every thought can not be other than hard and sharp. The effort of verbalization is like the resistance of the looming fir trees against the storm."
    [the translation of some sentences written by Heidegger. Translation by me. Note: the original is much better]
     
    • Thank Thank x 2
  5. Thalmoses

    Thalmoses Founder Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Posts:
    2,229
    Thanks Received:
    558
    Such conehead!

    What is it about? Nobody knows.

    The cone knows.
     
  6. Vejiortan

    Vejiortan Geheimrat Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2016
    Posts:
    2,304
    Thanks Received:
    1,196
    Further:
    His writings are the opposite of melon language weaponization. He cared about every little word and every sentence. His hyper-precision, together with his strong tendency towards individualized language, were factors increasing the difficulty level of his writings.

    Officially, he had two sons, but one of them wasn't his. He nevertheless gave him his name and raised him as his son. Later, his non-biological son was the one helping him compile his vast (private) collection of manuscripts into books. There's an anecdote that Heidegger said that his (non-public) works shouldn't published sooner than 50 to 100 years later (If I remember correctly), since the world wasn`t ready. His non-biological son then remarked that his works might get lost if there was to be a nuclear war. Therefore, Heidegger decided to publish them much sooner.

    The kindness he showed towards his non-biological son was this way reciprocated. Schicksal
     
  7. Robotnick

    Robotnick Well-Known Member Typed

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2016
    Posts:
    370
    Thanks Received:
    310
    Yes. There is an aspect to him that seems certainly non-melon. Koanic talked about how coneheads become less self-interested as the conehead moves forward along the Mohawk.

    His love of the countryside could be a forehead slope thing.

    Would you say that's avg spaced? Widishspaced? What kind of front would that be? Owl?
    [​IMG]

    Hannah Arendt seems to have thal sensitivity in her look. Maybe she is a transitional edenic type between Thal and Melon.
    [​IMG]
     
  8. Vejiortan

    Vejiortan Geheimrat Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2016
    Posts:
    2,304
    Thanks Received:
    1,196
    There's nothing particularly melon about his skull shape. His forehead is broad and relatively rectangular, whereas the classic melon frontal is more triangular (more pointy).
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  9. Aeoli Pera

    Aeoli Pera Admin Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2016
    Posts:
    1,576
    Thanks Received:
    472
    The same can be said of Apercus.

    I have little opinion of his physiognomy from those pictures (or his philosophy). His head is high and broad and his face is nondescript, and that's about all I can say. As far as melons go, his behavior could be explained as the reality management instinct turned inward, which I noted was one of the possibilities.

     
    • Thank Thank x 2
  10. Vejiortan

    Vejiortan Geheimrat Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2016
    Posts:
    2,304
    Thanks Received:
    1,196
    The question then is: How to distinguish a thal from an inward melon ?

    "They are always looking for the invisible strings that control the universe, always grasping for that mystical something that keeps getting closer as they mature, but always seems just out of reach. If they ever really “get it”, they believe nature itself will bend to their will."
    That's the worldview of someone trying to find the master app of the universe. So this kind of "inwardness" serves ultimately very outwardly-oriented goals.

    Actually, Heidegger regarded this kind of worldview (which could be called "utilitarian" or "will-to-power-based") as a low point in history.
     
  11. Thalmoses

    Thalmoses Founder Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Posts:
    2,229
    Thanks Received:
    558
    > He cared about every little word and every sentence.

    I used to do that until I noticed people weren't comprehending it, and cared to fix that. It was very annoying to give up the habit.

    Physiognomically, he's a melon. In Vej STS, maybe not. He's simply MORE. An echo of arch-Melon monolithic civilization, with its preference for low population density, and deep ties to nature as part of a unified religio-intellectual lifeway.

    The first abominations of scale now look at our distant remove like noble savagery.

    (That's poetic license written from the occ- uber-alles genocidal perspective.)
     
    • Thank Thank x 3
  12. Vejiortan

    Vejiortan Geheimrat Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2016
    Posts:
    2,304
    Thanks Received:
    1,196
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    Widish spaced eyes, high and broad (and rectangularly shaped) frontal. Short and small chin. Too small jaw for a melon.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]


    Second picture showes more than average socket depth (the angle actually reduces perceived depth).
    Further: Count the pixels in these pictures 1 2
    Very large frontal, no signs of enlarged parietal, small occ and small parietal. "aerodynamic" facial outline. Note that he was the opposite of tall.
    The only aspect reminiscent of a melon is the gaze
    [​IMG]
    Also: Some outercover (usual for widish spaced eyes).

    So there is almost no trait we usually associate with melons.
    However, that doesn't make him a thal either.
    There are some traits which look - weird. That's not a classic thal face and skull.
    There's something noble, powerful and ancient.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  13. glosoli

    glosoli Well-Known Member Typed

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2016
    Posts:
    685
    Thanks Received:
    302
    Heh, this thread is just like the old place, when I first arrived, and didn't have a clue what you guys were talking about. Now I know what a melon is at least. Thought you were all fruit-fetishists.
    Transition successful, well done.
     
    • Thank Thank x 2
  14. Thalmoses

    Thalmoses Founder Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Posts:
    2,229
    Thanks Received:
    558
    Some socket depth is unsurprising for what little I know of his life path. Looks like he might have some occipital bun as well, maybe. Anyhow his most dominant trait is the gigantic conehead. That's all I meant when I said "he's a melon" - he's a partial avatar of something older.
     
  15. Vejiortan

    Vejiortan Geheimrat Baron

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2016
    Posts:
    2,304
    Thanks Received:
    1,196
    What about making an "undercut" calculation using the above side picture and this and averaging them ?
     
  16. Thalmoses

    Thalmoses Founder Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Posts:
    2,229
    Thanks Received:
    558
    I have no clue about extrapolating 3d models from photographs
     
  17. Aeoli Pera

    Aeoli Pera Admin Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2016
    Posts:
    1,576
    Thanks Received:
    472
    His face is halfway between Einstein and Hitler.
     
    • Thank Thank x 1
  18. Robotnick

    Robotnick Well-Known Member Typed

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2016
    Posts:
    370
    Thanks Received:
    310
    Wittgenstein: Jewish Philosopher from Austria. I'm not an expert on his philosophy, but along with Heidegger, he is dubbed the most important philosopher of the 20th century, so I'll make a post of him.

    Definitely parietal. Backcone or backswept. Facial features and psych profile suggest psychopathy.
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
    To me, honestly the guy looks like a prick.

    "The limits of my language means the limits of my world"
    That aphorism reeks of Jew.

    Analytic philosophy seems to be the thorn in the side of modern western civilization. It only concentrates and emphasizes that which can be measured, that which can be put into words. It excludes other dimensions of thought, greatly neglecting Right-brain style thinking and processing.
    Reading through some of Bertrand Russell's arguments makes you want to vomit. Wittgenstein seems more sophisticated in his thought but nonetheless he has the characteristic neglect that analytic philosophers have.

    I've read in Russel's wiki that Bertrand Russell's work "wrote on every major area of philosophy except aesthetics." Yeah and deep down, at least in my mind, aesthetics is the most important.
     
    • Thank Thank x 3
  19. Lorien

    Lorien Active Member Typed

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2016
    Posts:
    162
    Thanks Received:
    129
    • Thank Thank x 2
  20. Robotnick

    Robotnick Well-Known Member Typed

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2016
    Posts:
    370
    Thanks Received:
    310
    Thanks Lorien, I'm bookmarking that website.
     

Share This Page