Just some preliminary thoughts on Heidegger after taking a stab at reading Being & Time. Certainly more to learn and discover, but for now, setting Heidegger aside...
Heidegger's point of view seems to be primarily from the individual. Where is his discussion of the role of being part of a much larger ecology? He does mention our connection with the world, that each of us comes into this world with their own perspective. But he doesn't talk much about the purpose of the larger collection of the human species, or the ecology, or Earth. Perhaps he is missing the search for a universal philosophy? One that would be shared by all life in the universe, not just humans on Earth?
2026 06 27 I posted a question on Heidegger on r/askphilosophy:
"I've been trying to read and understand Heidegger's Being & Time. I've read some of Polt's Heidegger: An Introduction. But I haven't found a reference to the perspective of my being part of a species, part of an ecology, part of an "organization." The focus seems to be from the perspective of the individual. Perhaps this is a given in general in Philosophy? But I do find Heidegger referring to our being part of the world, not separate from it. He also points out that each of us has our own perspective. My interest is in the purpose of humans as a species, over a longer time horizon than my own lifetime (more in keeping with geologic time and the process of evolution). Can anyone point me in a direction (a book, an article, a web site) that talks about Philosophy from this point of view? It seems to me that to understand the meaning of my life I might benefit from this broader perspective, too. Thank you!"
I agree with Heidegger (assuming I understand correctly) that what we perceive is dependent on, and a response to, the environment we evolved from. Our senses have survived because they lead to survival, reflecting the ability to observe, and eventually, control our external environment to our benefit. In that way, we are forever connected to our world, the Earth, and its environment/ecology. Any belief that our senses are independent, and allow us to see our world independently is wrong. What we can do is increase our perception to search our world for deeper understanding through tools like language (sharing perspectives), technology (increasing the breadth of our senses), and modeling (testing assumptions by predictive models, testing our imagination against the our environment).
2026 06 27 I got this replay on r/askphilosopby from u/tdono2112:
You’re not alone in this sort of issue with Heidegger! I would suggest checking out Derrida’s work on animality, like “The Animal that Therefore I Am,” as well as Jean-Luc Nancy’s “Being-Singular Plural.” The closest Heidegger will get to a consideration of something like “species-being” is mit-sein and “tradition” in B&T, but he dogmatically insists that the animal is “poor in world” at various points; while I think there are serious reasons to get behind the “non-anthropological” reading of Being and Time, there is certainly an anthropocentric baggage in his work. Similarly, Heidegger’s “ecstatic” notion of temporality, the always-already-outside-ness of Dasein, offers what a lot of folks in the French tradition see as an indication towards a way out of both Aristotelian time and the Cartesian plausibly-solipsistic subject, but fails to go far enough.
Specific to this bigger question of time and human finitude, two texts come to mind. Firstly, Timothy Morton’s “Hyperobjects,” which includes some somewhat jarring issues as a work of scholarship, is nonetheless a pretty compelling and interesting consideration of these massive scales that both builds on, and criticizes, Heidegger. Secondly, Ted Toadvine’s “The Memory of the World; Deep Time, Animality, and Eschatology,” which is a denser read but still a damn good book.
Edit:
In general, one of the weirdest things about Heidegger is that we’ll find some incredibly radical and compelling stuff that is, nonetheless, being thought by and filtered through a disastrously arrogant, if not out-right narcissistic, guy with a radically “conservative” streak.
Bataille, on the other hand, in both “The Accursed Share” and his writings on pre-history, has a better handle on the scope of human interconnectedness, but isn’t as committed to rigor and research as Heidegger. Bataille’s thought on human pre-history and our animality is continued in a chapter of Nancy’s “Muses” and Blanchot’s essay “The Beast of Lascaux,” both writers and thinkers who have learned from Heidegger and nonetheless are committed to going further than he did or could.
I did look at Derrida (not for the first time), and his work “The Animal that Therefore I Am,” as well as Jean-Luc Nancy’s “Being-Singular Plural," Timothy Morton’s “Hyperobjects,” and Ted Toadvine’s “The Memory of the World; Deep Time, Animality, and Eschatology.” I felt that the direction these works were heading differed from the direction I was interested in.
I asked Gemini about Bataille's "The Accursed Share":
Georges Bataille’s The Accursed Share (French: La Part maudite) is a groundbreaking 1949 work of political economy and philosophy that argues that the fundamental economic problem is not scarcity, but how to spend the inevitable excess ("the accursed share") of energy produced by the universe. Bataille shifts the focus of economics from production and saving to consumption, waste, and luxury, arguing that if a society cannot successfully destroy or expend its surplus energy through non-productive means (like art, festivals, or monuments), that energy will inevitably express itself destructively through catastrophic war. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]Here is a structured overview of the book's core concepts, its three volumes, and its lasting impact.Core Concepts
- General Economy: Traditional economics focuses on restricted economy (how individuals or nations allocate scarce resources). Bataille proposes a "general economy" based on the physics of the Earth, which receives a constant, overwhelming surplus of energy from the sun. [6, 7, 8]
- The Accursed Share: This is the ungenerous, un-reinvestable surplus. Because organisms and societies always produce more energy than they need to survive, this extra energy must be spent. [9]
- Glorious Consumption (Consumation): Bataille distinguishes between productive consumption (eating food to work) and glorious consumption (destroying wealth for its own sake). True freedom and sovereignty lie in the useless destruction of the surplus.
- The Choice: A society has two choices for its surplus: spend it on spectacles, art, sex, and monuments, or allow it to build up until it explodes as war. [10, 11]
Structure of the Work
Though often read as a single book (Volume 1), Bataille conceived The Accursed Share as a three-part project: [12, 13]
- Volume 1: Consumption: Outlines the general economy and looks at historical models of sacrifice. It analyzes the Aztec practice of human sacrifice, the Native American potlatch (competitive gift-giving), and the massive monastic wealth of Tibetan Buddhism as ways societies successfully purged their surplus. [14]
- Volume 2: The History of Eroticism: Examines how human sexuality shifted from a purely animal, reproductive act into an economic and sacred act of pure, non-productive expenditure. [15]
- Volume 3: Sovereignty: Defines the "sovereign" individual as someone who consumes and does not produce. A sovereign lives in the immediate moment, refusing to reduce life to a utility or a tool for future gain. [16, 17]
Historical Applications in the Text
Bataille uses his theory to re-interpret major historical shifts and contemporary events: [18]
- The Aztec Empire: A society entirely oriented around the violent destruction of life and wealth to keep the cosmic energy moving.
- The Reformation and Capitalism: Industrial capitalism, influenced by Protestantism, attempted to eliminate waste and reinvest every penny of surplus back into production. Bataille argues this denial of the "accursed share" is what makes modern industrial societies uniquely prone to massive, mechanized global wars.
- The Marshall Plan: Writing in the shadow of WWII, Bataille praised the U.S. Marshall Plan as a brilliant, unconscious act of general economy—the American state gave away its massive post-war surplus to Europe for free, avoiding a domestic economic explosion.
If you are exploring Bataille for a specific project, let me know if you would like me to:
- Breakdown his analysis of the Potlatch vs. Capitalism
- Connect his ideas to modern climate change and energy surplus
- Contrast his theories with Karl Marx or Adam Smith
No comments:
Post a Comment