0
   

Standingunder Understanding

 
 
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 12:57 am
To riff on/from Heidegger via George Steiner:

To think well is to think from astonishment. To understand is to stand under.
Western Man likes to rip Nature's dress off. If not that, then some other dress or curtain. The intellectual is conceived of as a person with x-ray vision who "sees through." It's the same with reading for subtext or between the lines.
I cannot deny the attractiveness of this conception, and perhaps I will never escape it. But..

To stand under and look up. To become a permeable listener rather than a piercing gaze. We associate knowing with seeing, and this is understandable (standunderable), but it's not the only way to conceive of knowing.

Pythagoras concerned himself with harmony. Is harmony a better metaphor for wisdom than seeing-thru? I like both.

Vision seems to penetrate. Hearing allows penetration. Is phallogocentrism tied up with visual metaphors for thinking?

I'm not against "phallogocentrism" on principle. I just against denying myself a multitude of perspectives (visual metaphor).
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,819 • Replies: 44
No top replies

 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 11:56 pm
@Reconstructo,
I know I didn't ask any questions in that first post. The medium was the message. Any feedback? (Yeah, this is one of those bumps.)
0 Replies
 
jgweed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 04:18 pm
@Reconstructo,
Aristotle wrote that philosophy begins in wonder.

There is an ancient Greek saying, "The truth is hard to find" or "The truth is always hidden." Does either Heidegger or Steiner then suggest that truth is like Salome, and western man spends his time tearing off the seven veils one by one (of course accompanied by R. Strauss)?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 06:06 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;126033 wrote:
To riff on/from Heidegger via George Steiner:

To think well is to think from astonishment. To understand is to stand under.
Western Man likes to rip Nature's dress off. If not that, then some other dress or curtain. The intellectual is conceived of as a person with x-ray vision who "sees through." It's the same with reading for subtext or between the lines.
I cannot deny the attractiveness of this conception, and perhaps I will never escape it. But..

To stand under and look up. To become a permeable listener rather than a piercing gaze. We associate knowing with seeing, and this is understandable (standunderable), but it's not the only way to conceive of knowing.

Pythagoras concerned himself with harmony. Is harmony a better metaphor for wisdom than seeing-thru? I like both.

Vision seems to penetrate. Hearing allows penetration. Is phallogocentrism tied up with visual metaphors for thinking?

I'm not against "phallogocentrism" on principle. I just against denying myself a multitude of perspectives (visual metaphor).



I hope you don't really think that "understand" has anything to do with standing under anything. It is typical Heidergerrian (and Steiner) nonsense. On a par with thinking that thinking has something to do with thanking God. It is called, "pseudo-etymology", and has as much to do with etymology as astrology with astronomy.
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 11:50 pm
@jgweed,
jgweed;127141 wrote:
Aristotle wrote that philosophy begins in wonder.

There is an ancient Greek saying, "The truth is hard to find" or "The truth is always hidden." Does either Heidegger or Steiner then suggest that truth is like Salome, and western man spends his time tearing off the seven veils one by one (of course accompanied by R. Strauss)?


Page 54 puts it better than I can.
Martin Heidegger - Google Books
0 Replies
 
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 11:59 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;127165 wrote:
I hope you don't really think that "understand" has anything to do with standing under anything. It is typical Heidergerrian (and Steiner) nonsense. On a par with thinking that thinking has something to do with thanking God. It is called, "pseudo-etymology", and has as much to do with etymology as astrology with astronomy.


On the contrary I think that the fact that "understanding" suggests a "standing under" is very instructive. There is a submission involved in understanding a truth as opposed to trying to overcome and rebel against that truth. To understand a truth is much like recognizing that truth's authority. Though I'm not sure if that's the same point that Heideger and Steiner were making. However, conflating truth with authority is in most cases not a good idea. There are many things/persons who claim authority but truth is not so pluralistic.

Truth implies authority
Authority does not imply truth
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 11:59 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;127165 wrote:
I hope you don't really think that "understand" has anything to do with standing under anything. It is typical Heidergerrian (and Steiner) nonsense. On a par with thinking that thinking has something to do with thanking God. It is called, "pseudo-etymology", and has as much to do with etymology as astrology with astronomy.


To understand comes from to stand among. But standingunder understanding was catchy.
understand http://www.etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gifO.E. understandan "comprehend, grasp the idea of," probably lit. "stand in the midst of," from under + standan "to stand" (see stand). If this is the meaning, the under is not the usual word meaning "beneath," but from O.E. under, from PIE *nter- "between, among" (cf. Skt. antar "among, between," L. inter "between, among," Gk. entera "intestines;" see inter-). But the exact notion is unclear. Perhaps the ult. sense is "be close to," cf. Gk. epistamai "I know how, I know," lit. "I stand upon." Similar formations are found in O.Fris. (understonda), M.Dan. (understande), while other Gmc. languages use compounds meaning "stand before" (cf. Ger. verstehen, represented in O.E. by forstanden ). For this concept, most I.E. languages use fig. extensions of compounds that lit. mean "put together," or "separate," or "take, grasp."
That's what's called a real etymology. Sure, it's well known (or rather a common opinion) that Heidegger was sometimes ridiculous. Van Gogh cut off an ear. Etc. No sh*t, man. Hume was tubby. Kant didn't get any. Wittgenstein was a mess. So what? I judge the work for myself.
You probably won't admit it, but you opened that post quoted above with foolishness. You were too lazy even to check. Another thing: the understanding line is mine, not Heidegger's. I doubt you've read H. If you have, you've not read it well.
It's one thing to point at faults and another to miss the virtue entirely. I suspect you are venting pure prejudice. For me philosophy is, among other things, the contrary of prejudice.
0 Replies
 
MMP2506
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 11:59 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;126033 wrote:
To riff on/from Heidegger via George Steiner:

To think well is to think from astonishment. To understand is to stand under.
Western Man likes to rip Nature's dress off. If not that, then some other dress or curtain. The intellectual is conceived of as a person with x-ray vision who "sees through." It's the same with reading for subtext or between the lines.
I cannot deny the attractiveness of this conception, and perhaps I will never escape it. But..

To stand under and look up. To become a permeable listener rather than a piercing gaze. We associate knowing with seeing, and this is understandable (standunderable), but it's not the only way to conceive of knowing.

Pythagoras concerned himself with harmony. Is harmony a better metaphor for wisdom than seeing-thru? I like both.

Vision seems to penetrate. Hearing allows penetration. Is phallogocentrism tied up with visual metaphors for thinking?

I'm not against "phallogocentrism" on principle. I just against denying myself a multitude of perspectives (visual metaphor).


Harmony and seeing-thru could be conceived as one in the same. Something which is harmonious is whole. Rational is linked to relatedness. What is rational is much easier to understand, thus see-thru, then what is irrational. Something must be understood in it's whole to be rational. There seems to be much connection there.

---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 12:02 AM ----------

kennethamy;127165 wrote:
I hope you don't really think that "understand" has anything to do with standing under anything. It is typical Heidergerrian (and Steiner) nonsense. On a par with thinking that thinking has something to do with thanking God. It is called, "pseudo-etymology", and has as much to do with etymology as astrology with astronomy.


Just because something isn't literally true does not make it nonsense.

Of course one can not stand under a word.

Would "standing behind it" make it easier for you to understand? :sarcastic:
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 12:02 am
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;127357 wrote:
Something must be understood in it's whole to be rational.


I agree. This reminds me of Hegel. This book is brilliant. Unfortunately, the best part on totality as the concrete real is not sampled.
Introduction to the reading of Hegel - Google Books

---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 01:06 AM ----------

MMP2506;127357 wrote:
Harmony and seeing-thru could be conceived as one in the same. Something which is harmonious is whole. Rational is linked to relatedness.


Yes, this is another way one could go. In Heidegger's case, it's more of a contrast. Rather than penetrating being, one becomes attuned with being. One vibrates with being rather than raping it. That last sentence is an exaggeration to get the point across. The Steiner book on Heidegger is a good read.
MMP2506
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 12:07 am
@Reconstructo,
How do you see the existentialism which rebelled against Hegel's mechanistic world fitting into the concepts of phenomenology conceived by Heidegger? Both existentialism and Hegel had a profound impact on Heidegger despite the perceived animosity that existed between them.

---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 12:20 AM ----------

Reconstructo;127360 wrote:


Yes, this is another way one could go. In Heidegger's case, it's more of a contrast. Rather than penetrating being, one becomes attuned with being. One vibrates with being rather than raping it. That last sentence is an exaggeration to get the point across. The Steiner book on Heidegger is a good read.


I believe Heidegger drew upon Kierkegaard's contrast between the Infinite and Finite in this facet of his philosophy. Whereas Kierkegaard saw the tension as inevitable, Heidegger understood that harmony could exist by allowing for the flow of Being to occur and not allowing the struggle to define ones existence.
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 01:38 am
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;127363 wrote:

I believe Heidegger drew upon Kierkegaard's contrast between the Infinite and Finite in this facet of his philosophy. Whereas Kierkegaard saw the tension as inevitable, Heidegger understood that harmony could exist by allowing for the flow of Being to occur and not allowing the struggle to define ones existence.

I like the sound of that. I've not yet immersed myself in K. I've read about him in histories of philosophy and a bit of Sickness Unto Death.

I can relate to his suspicion of systems like Hegel's. I think Hegel is brilliant, but I can't accept his system as the truth. Not at all. But fragments of Hegel's system are brilliant, and fit for assimilation. I vote for reading with scissors.

It's the same with Heidegger. He's also what I consider a genius, a new flavor. At the same time, he wasn't famous for his sense of humor. To me, humor is essential. Hegel didn't like the irony of the Schlegels. Fred Schlegel had this concept of the "transcendental buffoon" that I found quite charming. His brother translated Shakespeare into German. That earns no shortage of points right there.

Seems like Heidegger sees metaphysics since Plato as a power trip, one that leads us toward the destruction of our world and a forgetfulness of Being. No wonder he couldn't laugh. He had the world to save. But this is where I can't follow him. This humorless hero role. Anyone who's anyone is a sort of hero. Heidegger had to see Nietzsche as a meta-physician. He couldn't see or wouldn't see Nietzsche's transcendent irony.
MMP2506
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 12:52 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;127392 wrote:
I like the sound of that. I've not yet immersed myself in K. I've read about him in histories of philosophy and a bit of Sickness Unto Death.

I can relate to his suspicion of systems like Hegel's. I think Hegel is brilliant, but I can't accept his system as the truth. Not at all. But fragments of Hegel's system are brilliant, and fit for assimilation. I vote for reading with scissors.

I.


It seems to me the K's attempts we to free individuals from the mechanistic, tyrannical theme associate with Hegel. Sadly for K, I fear Hegel may have been on the right track.

Which is why Heidegger was so influenced by both I think. He saw the opportunity for both perspectives to coexist, as being exists as the freedom to avoid struggling between the finite and the infinite. Which is really a recurring theme throughout the world. I believe history will one day look very highly upon Heidegger, just may take a while for most of society to catch on.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 03:44 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;127355 wrote:
On the contrary I think that the fact that "understanding" suggests a "standing under" is very instructive. There is a submission involved in understanding a truth as opposed to trying to overcome and rebel against that truth. To understand a truth is much like recognizing that truth's authority. Though I'm not sure if that's the same point that Heideger and Steiner were making. However, conflating truth with authority is in most cases not a good idea. There are many things/persons who claim authority but truth is not so pluralistic.

Truth implies authority
Authority does not imply truth


Really? By which authority is it true that Mars is the fourth planet? Of course, that whole story about "understanding" is fantasy, bolstered by faux-etymology. If you think not, then please show the evidence.
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 04:18 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;127616 wrote:
Really? By which authority is it true that Mars is the fourth planet? Of course, that whole story about "understanding" is fantasy, bolstered by faux-etymology. If you think not, then please show the evidence.


I think you underestimate how radical Heidegger's philosophy is. "Standing Understanding" was my invention, influenced by Heidegger's thought. I say this so you don't confuse the two.

Etymology is not by any means the center of Heidegger's case. Yes, he thinks language is primary. He calls it the house of being. Like I said, he thinks Western metaphysics went wrong with Plato. Descartes is another one of his targets. Read the sample I provided. It's hard to believe you know what you are talking about in this case. Anyone can repeat
negative cliches. If you are so keen on presenting cases, then drag out this false etymology you accuse him of. Let's see it.

---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 05:30 PM ----------

Deckard;127355 wrote:
On the contrary I think that the fact that "understanding" suggests a "standing under" is very instructive. There is a submission involved in understanding a truth as opposed to trying to overcome and rebel against that truth.


This is on the road to what I think Heidegger meant. I suppose I could further describe it as "openness to Being." For him the ontic/ontological dichotomy was important. He didn't care much for ontic questions. He even said that "science didn't think," but "thinking" has a special meaning for him. Thinking is thanking. To think is to take a patient porous attitude toward Being, which can be described as the light that discloses beings. He sees man's essence as a questioning of being and its disclosure through language. Man is the custodian of being. He criticizes the technological mindset that sees Nature as raw material, that obsesses over the ontic, forgetting the ontological. He is the opposite of Francis Bacon in some ways. I've rambled enough. I will say that the Steiner book is great. Rorty is also great, but Rorty uses some of him and persuades against the rest. Here's a link. I stronly recommend to anyone the essay "Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and Language."

Essays on Heidegger and others - Google Books
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 04:30 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;127646 wrote:
I think you underestimate how radical Heidegger's philosophy is. "Standing Understanding" was my invention, influenced by Heidegger's thought. I say this so you don't confuse the two.

Etymology is not by any means the center of Heidegger's case. Yes, he thinks language is primary. He calls it the house of being. Like I said, he thinks Western metaphysics went wrong with Plato. Descartes is another one of his targets. Read the sample I provided. It's hard to believe you know what you are talking about in this case. Anyone can repeat
negative cliches. If you are so keen on presenting cases, then drag out this false etymology you accuse him of. Let's see it.


If you are influence by H. then this stuff about "understanding" is an example of faux-etymology. There is not a shred of evidence for it. It is a fairy story. Heidegger's crap about "denken" and "danken" is exactly the same. There is not a shred of evidence for it either. It is made up out of whole cloth.
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 04:32 pm
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;127559 wrote:
I believe history will one day look very highly upon Heidegger, just may take a while for most of society to catch on.


His philosophical reputation is secured. His political mistakes will haunt his legacy, as they should.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 04:52 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;127663 wrote:
His philosophical reputation is secured.


It sure is. And so is Derrida's. But that does not say what their reputations are.
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 08:21 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;127676 wrote:
It sure is. And so is Derrida's. But that does not say what their reputations are.


A philosopher who doesn't scare or confuse anyone is probably a boring philosopher. Socrates was put to death, after all, for corrupting the youth.

---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 09:24 PM ----------

kennethamy;127662 wrote:
If you are influence by H. then this stuff about "understanding" is an example of faux-etymology. There is not a shred of evidence for it. It is a fairy story. Heidegger's crap about "denken" and "danken" is exactly the same. There is not a shred of evidence for it either. It is made up out of whole cloth.


What wonderful evidence you present for this lack of evidence. Your first statement is a masterpiece of logic. Faux-criticism is more like it.
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 02:13 am
@Reconstructo,
How do the mental faculties process/understand themselves? How do we understand understanding?
Is reason just an abstraction, a false first cause of our rhetoric? A fictional first-cause. A bluff?
0 Replies
 
jgweed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 09:23 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;127662 wrote:
If you are influence by H. then this stuff about "understanding" is an example of faux-etymology. There is not a shred of evidence for it. It is a fairy story. Heidegger's crap about "denken" and "danken" is exactly the same. There is not a shred of evidence for it either. It is made up out of whole cloth.


I have discussed Heidegger's philological method elsewhere this morning (Post nr. 11 in the Astonishment at Being thread). To argue that it is "faux-etymology" seems to imply that there is a "true-etymology" and I suspect most experts in the field would raise an eyebrow at such an assertion, especially the further back one goes in time.
To say that there is not "a shred of evidence" for it implies that there is "evidence" that would be universally accepted by those with expertise in the matter. What kind of evidence would fit this criteria, and would it be such that only one interpretation would present itself?

Rather than use terms like "fairy story" or the more philosophical "crap," it seems the conter-argument would be furthered by an epitome of contrary scholarly interpretations and their discussions of original sources upon which these are based. Until that is presented, one must decide which side is "made up out of whole cloth."
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Standingunder Understanding
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 04/14/2021 at 05:04:19