>The consumption of all materials, including the raw material 'man,' for the unconditional possibility of of the production of everything is determined in a concealed way by the complete emptiness in which beings, the materials of what is real, are suspended. This emptiness has to be filled up. But since the emptiness of Being can never be filled up by the fullness of beings, especially when this emptiness can never be experienced as such, the only way to escape it is incessantly to arrange beings in the constant possibility of being ordered as the form of guaranteeing aimless activity. Viewed in this way, technology is the organization of a lack, since it is related to the emptiness of Being contrary to its knowledge. Everywhere where there are not enough beings - and it is increasingly everywhere and always not enough for the will to will escalating itself - technology has to jump in, create a substitute, and consume the raw materials.
lol we actually had to study this during last year of high school
Christian Russell
Why are her nipples so high up on her boobs? It looks odd.
Matthew Martinez
seething roastie only used to >her saggies
Christopher Price
Hmm this is actually pretty damn good. The emptiness of being as the condition of technology's possibility.
Gavin Lewis
Heidegger constantly is pointing out that there are different ways humans have of viewing Being or “beings”. However, he points that ultimately, the meaning of Being is a mystery that is something like emptiness. What does “Being” mean exactly? Everything you can point to has Being as its axiom — nothing would exist without Being; however, Being itself is also nothing in particular, has no qualities, no way to really pry it open and examine it. (One popular conception of Being is that it is what is extended in space and corporeal — this is Descartes’s definition of physical reality; however, H. tackles this idea in Being & Time, arguing that extension in space and corporeality still do not get to the heart of what Being is, as they would still not themselves exist without Being). The fact that Being, the meaning of what it is to “exist”, has no particular traits or easy answers to it, Heidegger calls the emptiness of Being in this passage.
On the other hand, the modern technological/scientific view of reality or Being (which Heidegger argues is a tremendous narrowing-down of reality, of a more primordial possible relationship with Being — it’s as if we’ve said “We’re only going to explain everything in technological and scientific terms and disregard everything else” then concluded, “Gee! Everything that exists can ONLY be described technologically and scientifically! How about that?” while forgetting we ourselves made this model) views Being as just “things” or raw material to use. This is the way in which moderners conceive of the “fullness” of Being. “Coal is something solid, full! Buildings are solid, real, full! People are solid, real, full!” To cover up the fact that we really don’t know anything about the meaning of Being, to cover up the emptiness of Being (the fact that it has no particular qualities and is a mystery), we flee into viewing reality as just a collection of solid things, FULL of objects and materials to be used. Paradoxically, these materials (and even humans begin to be viewed as materials to be used) are used, more or less, simply to justify more aimless activity, more production of materials and exploitation of humans as if they were materials to be used.
Anthony Cox
>wearing g-string
Why are women such cowards?
Logan Brooks
they're fake, or she's just got weird nipples.
Zachary Lewis
She's just got perky boobs mate not every girl has big droopers.
Grayson Peterson
you're such a virgin lol
Benjamin Nguyen
Disgusting tattoo.
Lincoln Garcia
nipples usually aren't north of the radial line.
Evan Cox
Thank you man, really appreciate that now i can get it more, but i would like to ask being as something more than raw life as object, isn't something only or mostly philosophers and people who care about philosophy would ask or meditate about ? i do not see the relation with technology as much as it is a critique of the modern view of being not even technology just modernity as a stage ?
>There is nothing objectionable about consumption per se, which is directly related to the biological rhythms of human labor. It's when consumption enables or necessitates hyperactive production that it signals a distinct pathology. If Heidegger is right, then the goal of creating an earthly paradise on earth is not so much the teleological end that guides our activity as the fiction thar sponsors our blind demand for endless activity — a demand that arises from our unacknowledged suffering from, and denial of, the emptiness of Being. If one understands boredom as fundamentally related to that emptiness, then the attempt ro escape from the emptiness of Being could be seen as another symptom of our boredom. Or perhaps boredom is the consequence of our inability to experience that emptiness in a genuine way. Be that as it may, the endless productivity mandated by endless consumption, and the endless consumption mandated by endless productivity, becomes in the present age the only way to "escape" — but not to fill — that emptiness.
