notkevinjohn t1_itveiq3 wrote on October 26, 2022 at 4:19 PM

Reply to comment by cosmospen in The philosophy of Martin Heidegger who argued that the Technological mindset has destroyed our relationship to the world so that Nature is seen as so many resources to exploit. He presents an alternative: a poetic relationship to the world by thelivingphilosophy

Can you give me any reason to believe that there is ANYONE on Earth who sees things the way you are describing them? Do you see the world that way? Do you know anyone who has told you they see the world that way? Or are you just projecting that world view onto people you disagree with?

cosmospen t1_itvwkky wrote on October 26, 2022 at 6:16 PM

I'm not disagreeing overall except on the point that going back to nature is not Heidegger's point. Sorry.

notkevinjohn t1_itvzmp7 wrote on October 26, 2022 at 6:35 PM

Having a more poetic instead of technological relationship with nature absolutely IS Heidegger's point. Sorry.

cosmospen t1_iu3pz2b wrote on October 28, 2022 at 9:56 AM

Heidegger's (imo ofc) is poetic, but not going back to nature. It tries to integrate the opposites (nature vs tech) rather than pick one.

notkevinjohn t1_iu4ztbc wrote on October 28, 2022 at 4:19 PM

Nature and technology are not 'opposites.' You are trying to obfuscate with semantics, but my underlying point remains clear. A poetic relationship with nature doesn't allow more people the privilege of getting to be born and getting to live to adulthood; technology does. I don't see how you can argue around that but clearly you're going to keep trying.

cosmospen t1_iu5thzf wrote on October 28, 2022 at 7:39 PM

You're partly right but that's not Heidegger's point I believe. He wants to merge nature and technology poetically and psychologically more than arguing for nature against technology.

notkevinjohn t1_iu5upyh wrote on October 28, 2022 at 7:47 PM

First off, I disagree that his point wasn't to have a more poetic relationship with nature IN LIEU of a more technological one instead of having a a more poetic relationship with nature IN ADDITION to having a more technological relationship with nature.

Second off, even if his point was to merge nature and technology 'poetically' that's an argument that's so subjective as to be useless. What I consider a poetic merger, others wouldn't consider poetic at all. You might as well be arguing that our relationship with nature should just be 'better' because that's as subjectively valid as 'poetic' and also as devoid of specificity.