I think the identification of rationality with technological essence is a species of the forgetfulness of being. What I like in Owen's discourse is the constant "in some sense" reflectivity. We are animals, wait for it, in some sense. It's theoretical mutation out of the dictionary vocabulary that lives das Man. As it were...
Also yes on the forgetfulness point. Technology seems to make us forget something about being which might fill in the gap (death of God, meaning crisis ect.).. I like the walled-in analogy that Daniel brings up; autonomous rationality as he says, walls us in so that thinking is forgetful. I plan to begin a proper reading of Heidegger, seeing how these ideas correspond to him. It will be weird for me because I have already adopted categorized metaphysics with Platonic soul. But let's see what happens.
@@owenintheagon I think of it like Nicias and Laches clashing over Andrea, courage. Eg, on the point of whether it simply is the common usage which includes the lion, as Laches says, or whether "in some sense" it says something else which only logos sees.
@@owenintheagon What I mean is that I think rationality in some sense has been identified with the technological essence. But, not rationality. It's the lack of the "in some sense" I object to. Like, one way would be rationality in the qualified sense of instrumental rationality rather than ratiocination. There's lots of directions, some of which trace the idea of rationality backwards in history starting with current usage.
@@letdaseinliveI agree but I do point out at the beginning that human aggressivity is framed through a forms and virtues. It's not reducible to instinct. At least for humans
I think the identification of rationality with technological essence is a species of the forgetfulness of being.
What I like in Owen's discourse is the constant "in some sense" reflectivity. We are animals, wait for it, in some sense. It's theoretical mutation out of the dictionary vocabulary that lives das Man. As it were...
In some sense is my version of (so on and so on and so on)
Also yes on the forgetfulness point. Technology seems to make us forget something about being which might fill in the gap (death of God, meaning crisis ect.).. I like the walled-in analogy that Daniel brings up; autonomous rationality as he says, walls us in so that thinking is forgetful.
I plan to begin a proper reading of Heidegger, seeing how these ideas correspond to him. It will be weird for me because I have already adopted categorized metaphysics with Platonic soul. But let's see what happens.
@@owenintheagon
I think of it like Nicias and Laches clashing over Andrea, courage. Eg, on the point of whether it simply is the common usage which includes the lion, as Laches says, or whether "in some sense" it says something else which only logos sees.
@@owenintheagon What I mean is that I think rationality in some sense has been identified with the technological essence. But, not rationality. It's the lack of the "in some sense" I object to.
Like, one way would be rationality in the qualified sense of instrumental rationality rather than ratiocination. There's lots of directions, some of which trace the idea of rationality backwards in history starting with current usage.
@@letdaseinliveI agree but I do point out at the beginning that human aggressivity is framed through a forms and virtues. It's not reducible to instinct. At least for humans