Time Understood In The Greek Manner, , Corresponds In Essence To , Which We Erroneously Translate As
““Time” understood in the Greek manner, χρόνος, corresponds in essence to τόπος, which we erroneously translate as “space.” Τόπος is place, and specifically that place to which something appertains, e.g., fire and flame and air up, water and earth below. Just as τόπος orders the appurtenance of a being to its dwelling place, so χρόνος regulates the appurtenance of the appearing and disappearing to their destined “then” and “when.” Therefore time is called μακρός, “broad,” in view of its capacity, indeterminable by man and always given the stamp of the current time, to release beings into appearance or hold them back. Since time has its essence in this letting appear and taking back, number has no power in relation to it. That which dispenses to all beings their time of appearance and disappearance withdraws essentially from all calculation.”
— Martin Heidegger, Parmenides
-
bruteides liked this · 1 year ago
-
r0ttenpetals liked this · 1 year ago
-
requiemforascream liked this · 1 year ago
-
requiemforascream reblogged this · 1 year ago
-
hayesspd321 reblogged this · 1 year ago
-
hayesspd321 liked this · 1 year ago
-
old-glory reblogged this · 1 year ago
-
alphaomega04 liked this · 1 year ago
-
the-framed-maelstrom reblogged this · 1 year ago
-
the-framed-maelstrom reblogged this · 1 year ago
-
00v liked this · 2 years ago
-
ignotum-equilibrium liked this · 8 years ago
More Posts from The-framed-maelstrom
The works created by several masters are not as perfect as those created by one. One sole architect must construct a house and a town; the best constitutions are those that are the work of a sole wise legislator, they are devised by only one; and finally, a sole God governs the world. As Descartes once wrote to Mersenne, "It is God who established these laws in nature just as a king establishes laws in his kingdom."
Carl Schmitt, Political Theology
The relevance of the state rested on the fact that it provided a decision, the relevance of the Church on its rendering of the last decision that could not be appealed. Infallibility was the essence of the decision that cannot be appealed, and the infallibility of the spiritual order was of the same nature as the sovereignty of the state order. The two words infallibility and sovereignty were perfectly synonymous. Every sovereignty acted as if it were infallible, every government was absolute. In this sentence there lies the clearest antithesis in the entire history of political ideas.
Carl Schmitt, Political Theology
Humanity reels blindly through a labyrinth that we call history, whose entrance, exit, and shape nobody knows; humanity is a boat aimlessly tossed about on the sea and manned by a mutinous, vulgar, forcibly recruited crew that howls and dances until God's rage pushes the rebellious rabble into the sea so that quiet can prevail once more.
Carl Schmitt, Political Theology
The consistency of exclusively scientific thinking has permeated political ideas, repressing the essentially juristic-ethical thinking that had predominated in the age of the Enlightenment. The general validity of a legal prescription has become identified with the lawfulness of nature, which applies without exception. The sovereign, who in the deistic view of the world, even if conceived as residing out-side the world, had remained the engineer of the great machine, has been radically pushed aside. The machine now runs by itself.
Carl Schmitt, Political Theology
Although the liberal bourgeoisie wanted a god, its god could not become active; it wanted a monarch, but he had to be powerless; it demanded freedom and equality but limited voting rights to the propertied classes in order to ensure the influence of education and property on legislation, as if education and property entitled that class to repress the poor and uneducated; it abolished the aristocracy of blood and family but permitted the impudent rule of the moneyed aristocracy, the most ignorant and the most ordinary form of an aristocracy; it wanted neither the sovereignty of the king nor that of the people. What did it actually want?
Carl Schmitt, Political Theology
It wants revenge