Time--Running Out or Plenty Left?

By
If Will was right and last semester was all about sex, then this semester is all about time. Eliot's Prufrock who believed there was plenty of time, Faulkner and the progression--or regression--that comes with time, O'Connor and how people develop and harden/change over time, etc etc etc. Heidegger is no different. His take on "destitution" reminds me of the Doomsday Clock the statisticians make a big fuss over. However, I must admit that after having read the entire thing I don't understand much of it. I got that he really likes the words "abyss", "destitute", "Being", "Open", "holy", and that he likes mentioning poets and Leibniz, but he lost me frequently. And then I'd feel like I understood some more and then he'd lose me again.

I did follow his idea on the difference between tracking the holy and the trace left behind the holy. To me though, the most profound thought I grabbed from the piece was towards the end and he says, "this day is the world's night, rearranged into merely technological day. This day is the shortest day. It threatens a single endless winter. Not only does protection now withhold itself from man, but the integralness of the whole of what is remains now in darkness...the world becomes without healing, unholy."

I could be completely wrong, but this reminds me of now and how people rely so heavily on technology for healing and numbing. Instead of turning to God--the only One who can heal--we settle to not look or reach into the abyss. Am I terribly wrong? Was I the only one horribly confused and yet intrigued?

I commented on Michael and Zelda's posts.

Comments

  1. Noah PalframanFebruary 26, 2018 at 11:00 PM

    I know this one! Have you ever walked into a room and everyone and their mother is on their cell phones, no doubt all of them browsing social media? It's so ironic, people today lock themselves behind phones on social media in an attempt to be more social, but they can't put down their phones for five minutes and talk to the person next to them. This world is becoming numb to true social interaction and I think that is the final nail in the coffin, so to speak, that will drive humanity to its end (ominous, I know). There is no emotion behind texting (and don't say "emojis" because those really don't help at all) and I think that's what you're getting at behind the world becoming numb. Plus, the technology that we possess now is bottom line: convenient. You need a recipe for lasagna? Google it. Need to know the shortest route to Moe's BBQ? Google it? We have more power in the palm of our hand than Neil and Buzz had aboard their flight to the Moon. Technology is destroying us indirectly, and the ones that are locked to their screens are oblivious to the matter. (Side note: I hate seeing parents that occupy their children by letting them play games on their phone. It's lazy and un-involved parenting.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Phillip VoFebruary 26, 2018 at 11:08 PM

    His whole thing was more confusing than most poems if we're being honest.

    I wish in these kinds of writing we could cut the extra and just get to the point of what is actually being said, but I guess there is a beauty in working for it, just like there is a beauty in poets seeking the midnight, or anyone searching for the deepest parts of this life.

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownFebruary 26, 2018 at 11:10 PM

    I appreciate your take on this because I think it just adds one more piece to the puzzle I'm trying to put together with this work. Your pointing out of time's significance helps me...my focus was so heavily directed towards the Being and Openness and venture that time had slipped through the cracks. I think your assertion is intriguing and would be quite incredible if it is indeed a direction Heidegger was going, but my semantics are so confused right now that it would be demented of me to think I understood his train of thought (LOL).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An Honest Reaction to Reading "Honest to God"

By
Originally I said in my last blog post that I liked this book, but I have sort of changed my mind. It is not that I hate it or anything, it is just weird and I don’t really agree with what John Robinson is saying most of the time. I appreciate that he is trying to write something different and new, but my problem is that some of the ideas are just a little too radical for my taste, and I disagree with him a lot. In the seventh and last chapter of the book, Robinson himself acknowledges his radicalness and writes about how he knows that this type of thought on religion is controversial. He goes on to write how all great thinkers were seen as controversial when they first started and says, “Every new religious truth comes as the destroyer of some other god”. To further prove this point, he uses the example of how Socrates was condemned as an atheist for not believing in multiple gods, and while it is true that Socrates was a great philosopher who was not seen as so when he was alive, I ...
Read more

Raphael and a man walk into Eden...

By
I'll just start off by saying Raphael is one of the three named archangels in Scripture we hear the least about, and I thoroughly enjoy just reading and seeing his name pop up. Regardless, I want to touch on Adam's recounting of his own..."birth". Take that with a grain of salt as Adam was not physically born, but rather he simply became. In truth, we should all be able to give a similar account to their first memory of consciousness and fully aware. Adam was created, but he realized he could walk, talk, and speak without first learning. Imagine being able to think clear thoughts in your native language and be a functioning individual right out of the womb. It's an incredible thought, and Adam can give a recall of this like it were yesterday...which it might have been, who knows? Aside from that, Adam could even give an account to Eve's creation. The Bible says nothing pertaining to this matter so this is where Milton does a bit of adlibbing and writes around ...
Read more

Extra blog

By
OK so, honors project! Honestly I really loved it as a whole. I said this already in the video, but I feel like I personally could've done better. I just feel like I didn't have enough time to completely process some questions and be able to give my best responses. I really enjoyed reading the O'Connor piece, which I think was everyone's favorite anyway. I love narrative stories like that, but honestly I'm glad I got to be in the Russell group. I feel like that group was the easiest to argue and answer from, honestly. As a whole, I would love to do a project like this again in later semesters. It was a lot of fun and time FLEW by.
Read more