Read on Twitter
Hesitant to do any sincere theory posting, but... If you're going to hold something up as a devastating "counterblast" to Heidegger, please at least strive to know the remotest fuck of what you're talking about. Or just don't pay any attention to him, that's fine too!
I assure you, the "atemporality" of inorganic matter is not some clever gotcha to the existential analytic. It's not like this is something he just somehow forgot to think about lol. The sections on Vorhandenheit are right there, and they're among the easiest parts of B&T o read.
Yes I posted this in bed in the dark at 2:36am while unable to sleep and gave no context at all on the reference, but essentially it was Malabou (who I do love) saying that a Heideggerian concept of being-toward-death is made obsolete by a Freudian concept of death drive.
The claim is very reminiscent to me of Brassier's chapter on Heidegger in NU (the Malabou paper and that book both came out in 2007). In both cases they miss the wider import of being-towards-death, which is less about confronting/escaping finitude and more about producing it.
I just find the spec. mat. readings of and attacks on Heidegger around that time funny in retrospect, because whereas now people tend to orient their critiques around H's fascism and the nihilism of fascism, back then they liked to critique him for not being nihilistic enough!
And it's always essentially the same critique: "Heidegger's thought (in B&T and beyond) is no more than a terrified retreat from the outside of the given (or finitude, or life, etc.), and was a natural extension of his his fascism (or his liberalism, or his occultism, etc.)."
Imo, this perennial critique is founded on a misreading
- that's how you get people acting as if being-towards death means the same as "carpe diem" or "memento mori" or some shit. (And yes, lots of actual Heideggerians, fash and liberal, encourage this reading.)
- that's how you get people acting as if being-towards death means the same as "carpe diem" or "memento mori" or some shit. (And yes, lots of actual Heideggerians, fash and liberal, encourage this reading.)
People just don't want to know what temporality means in the work. Like I said, if you don't wanna read H then you don't have to go any further than "he was a Nazi." That's more than enough permission to turn to other thinkers, whom you might actually be prepared to engage with.
