Heidegger

Rene,

We can no longer decide if technology is to dominate, but we can decide how.
If you read Heidegger properly, worrying about technology is like worrying
about the fact that earth is (kind of) round.

Strauss tried to provide an answer to the question of political technology
(politics as employing scientific expertise, represented by Machiavelli) and
he promoted the view that as long politicians serve the cause of giving the
people the idols it wants, they can do just about anything. The arbitrary of
rulers is back into politics.

The same about global domination: we shouldn’t worry that one dominates the
world (though it would be preferable that two forces compete for world
domination), but we should worry about how this world domination is done.

Political domination is ok, but I will try to show that cultural imperialism
is nefarious. The democratic revolutionaries assume that “life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness” is good everywhere in the world.

While I was discussing the problems in Iraq with three simple people, they
reached the conclusion that the Iraqis cannot cope with democracy, and they
would be better off with an authoritarian ruler. So, the solution to the
post-Saddam chaos is another Saddam.

“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” do not work everywhere, for
they require an individualistic frame of mind. They require people to
cherish individualistic values and to understand to play by the rules of
individualistic competition.

But, the reality of the Eastern peoples is that they exist in kind of
being-in-collectivism. They (as peoples) cannot unlearn collectivism. They
are simply pre-wired for collectivism instead of being socialized into
collectivism.

And, the chaos produced by the neoconservatives has an obvious reason: at
one hand they are promoting the individualistic culture, free market,
freedom of speech in order to spread liberal democracy all around the world,
and on the other hand Straussianism is built upon a visceral hate of
whatever individualism is.

So, US spread individualism worldwide and try to combat it at home. From
this political confusion follow incoherent strategies. It is like in the old
anecdote, in a building company, team A is busy digging a ditch and team B
is busy un-digging it.

So, in the first place it should be made clear to everybody if individualism
is going to be followed, if yes, to what degree, and if no why the hell US
are busy exporting liberal democracy, when they no longer need it at home?

But, in the political confusion in the US, produced by the metaphysical
underdevelopment of its demos, this question cannot be competently answered.

And, the answer to this question is of fundamental importance. One cannot go
at the same time to the East and to the West. If one is to move at all,
he/she should first decide where he/she wants to go to. Otherwise, the work
of team A will be undone by team B, and those who don’t notice this will
keep asking why the problems are getting worse.

So, admitting that there is a solution for world’s problems, that solution
should be followed consequently and one should not try moving in two
directions at once.

“For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to
the battle?” 1 Corinthians 14:8

Greetings,

Tudor Georgescu

> —–Original Message—–
> From: heidegger-bounces at soca.ecu.edu.au [mailto:heidegger-
> bounces at soca.ecu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Bakker, R.B.M. de
> Sent: vrijdag 23 juni 2006 12:34
> To: Discussions pertaining to the philosophy of Martin Heidegger
> Subject: RE: Only technology can save us now …
>
> Armageddon/global warming is nothing but technology.
> The last echo of humanity is the malice of the heading.
>
> not worth a spit
>
> rene

Posted on Sunday, June 25th, 2006 at 8:45 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback
Tags: libertarian» neoconservative»