what is the beggining of philosophy?

@Dasein,

Sorry think you have the cart before the horse here.

The Greeks said 'know thyself' that is a good starting point. From there over the millennia as human consciousness has grown and human discourse has expanded our frontiers of knowledge about our interior and exterior selves and its role, rhyme and reason has evolved.

The river has many currents( sorry don't ilk arboreal metaphors). As for your quote you have to "be" well I know I AM and that I is in a process of becoming.

It depends I guess on how you view the human condition.

4 Replies

@Paracelsus,

loosing your time...there´s no functional, practical way of addressing Dasein...he is an algorithm killer...

(...man, that got to be an original sentence to "shout"/"insult" someone with...
like: YOU are an algorithm killer...the nemesis of all reason !!! Say what ???)

0 Replies

@JPLosman0711,

Read up on your modal logic and number theory.

Basically 2 to the w power, where w is the number of worlds, is infinite. This infinity is identical to the interval [0,1], which is Aleph zero. The size of these two infinities is identical. However, the interval [0,1] is greater than the set of all natural numbers (which we call 'omega'). The reason for this is because the interval [0,1] includes all real numbers in between 0 and 1, whereas the set of natural numbers is a subset of the reals.

0 Replies

@Paracelsus,

That's all crap that you're 'stuck' on, get it out of the way.

0 Replies

@Paracelsus,

Paracelsus wrote:

Sorry think you have the cart before the horse here.

The Greeks said 'know thyself' that is a good starting point. From there over the millennia as human consciousness has grown and human discourse has expanded our frontiers of knowledge about our interior and exterior selves and its role, rhyme and reason has evolved.

Is there an exterior and interior self, or is there really only one self? Why make the dichotomy? I would imagine that in someway my consciousness is connected through the world by the way it directs-itself-toward the world. But then again I could be wrong.

2 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

I don't have 'theories', if you want to label text on your computer screen you go right ahead.

1 Reply

@JPLosman0711,

I do not have 'theories' either; I really don't know what that means. I have theories and proofs for theories. Seems reasonable don't you think?

Do you have a problem with Number Theory? It's pretty cool if you think about it. Modal Logic is the bees knees too.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

Your 'proof' is about as useful as cow pooh, there is much that I know which cannot be 'proven'. It doesn't mean I don't know it though, it just means that I can't go bragging to everyone(proving) about how much I know.

The only 'problem' I have with 'number theory'(you typing on a keyboard) is that even if there are 'infinite worlds' how is your post(theory) going to change whether we can experience them or not? If it doesn't, then what's the point in posting?

You also can't 'prove' to me that which I don't already know, same goes from me to you.

So, what's the point in proof?

1 Reply

@Paracelsus,

You can't 'become' that which you already are.

What I am writing isn't theory, opinion, or wishful thinking. I speak from a place called 'knowing'.

It's kind of like sex. You can have 'wishful thinking' about it. You can have theories and opinions about it, but you only 'know' by having sex, right?
You said;

Quote:

”As for your quote you have to "be" well I know I AM and that I is in a process of becoming.”

When the Greeks said "know thyself", they really meant "know thy self". They knew there was no 'becoming'.
You also said;

Quote:

”From there over the millennia as human consciousness has grown and human discourse has expanded our frontiers of knowledge about our interior and exterior selves and its role, rhyme and reason has evolved.”

I don't know if we have the ability to “expand human consciousness”. I do know that we have added 'tools' that help in making new distinctions about the world we live in.

Consciousness is like your forefinger. Before man categorized his 'guttural grunts' into what we now call language we had a forefinger, but we didn't have an 'agreed upon' language so we didn't call it a 'forefinger'. It was still there but we just didn't call it anything.

Since then we have developed medicine, biology, microscopes and the electron microscope. These new tools have made it possible for us to make new distinctions in the mass (measurability) and substance of our forefinger.

Your forefinger is made up of cells and water, hair, bone, capillaries, muscle, sweat glands, sensory nerve endings, fat, collagen, epidermis, etc. If the 'forefinger' wasn't already there we wouldn't have been able to make the new distinctions. Which is what I meant when I said:

Quote:

“You have to 'be' before you can philosophize and you have to philosophize before you can contain your philosophizing into a definition (philosophy).”

I don't think the additional distinctions have added anything to the 'human consciousness'. I do know that we have seemingly covered up who we are with the new distinctions and have become increasingly led away from our 'self'.

0 Replies

@JPLosman0711,

JPLosman0711 wrote:

Your 'proof' is about as useful as cow pooh, there is much that I know which cannot be 'proven'. It doesn't mean I don't know it though, it just means that I can't go bragging to everyone(proving) about how much I know.

The only 'problem' I have with 'number theory'(you typing on a keyboard) is that even if there are 'infinite worlds' how is your post(theory) going to change whether we can experience them or not? If it doesn't, then what's the point in posting?

Well good sir, in Logic, Math, and the Sciences we have to prove things. Otherwise one could simply say very arbitrary things such as '~a=a is true and a=a is false'.

Number theory has nothing to do with me typing on a keyboard, or at least in an explicit way.

Well can we experience possible worlds? We most certainly experience the actual world, but what connection is there from the actual world to a possible world, say, in which you do not exist; or I do not exist for that matter? I think it has something to do with our perception of the actual world, but Ill leave you to ponder on that notion.

And how am I bragging? Better still, what would me bragging have to do with the proof that I have given? I smell a faint hint of ad hominem, but I'll let it slide. I am using the skills that I have aqcuired from my studies in Logic and Number Theory; people do this kind of stuff all the time.

My post was to show the impossibility of interpreting Be-ing in every possible world, and to further show that Heideggers project is a failed attempt at uncovering Be-ing. Of course, there are (I assume) premises in my proof which you could attack, and you are more than encouraged to do so.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

Excellent observation about

Quote:

"Is there an exterior and interior self, or is there really only one self?"

The interesting thing we don't notice is that

Quote:

"my consciousness"

is the same dichotomy you're addressing.

"My" is an indicator. It points to 'you' be-ing. 'Consciousness' is a representation, a combination of characteristics, a concept. You are not 'consciousness', a concept. 'You' are what is being indicated by the 'my'.

We are extremely capable of making distinctions about the concepts of life, however I don't think we have come close to scratching the surface of 'be-ing'.

2 Replies

@Dasein,

Are you familiar with Alan Watts?

He scratched alot of the 'surface'.....

1 Reply

@Dasein,

Dasein wrote:

Excellent observation about
Quote:
"Is there an exterior and interior self, or is there really only one self?"
The interesting thing we don't notice is that
Quote:
"my consciousness"
is the same dichotomy you're addressing.

"My" is an indicator. It points to 'you' be-ing. 'Consciousness' is a representation, a combination of characteristics, a concept. You are not 'consciousness', a concept. 'You' are what is being indicated by the 'my'.

We are extremely capable of making distinctions about the concepts of life, however I don't think we have come close to scratching the surface of 'be-ing'.

Not really. If you intend an appearance, then there is a connection between your consciousness and that which you are conscious-of. There is never an internal or external, but one merely intending an appearance which is present-at-hand.

To say that there is an internal and external means, I think, that there is an inner 'I' which is unified (refer to Kant's Transcendental Unity of Apperception) prior to one's experience of the external world. Intentionality eliminates the need for an inner 'I'.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

Quote:

My post was to show the impossibility of interpreting Be-ing in every possible world, and to further show that Heideggers project is a failed attempt at uncovering Be-ing.

I have read Heidegger's "Being and Time" almost 74 times in the past 15 years (I'm on hold while I write my book).

The "failure" you mention is not Heidegger's, it is your failure to do the work required.

Around the 71st to 73rd readings I made what I call the leap into be-ing.

The easy route to take is to assign your failure to Heidegger. That way you don't have to do the work.

The only one you're fooling is you.

1 Reply

@JPLosman0711,

Yes I am familiar with Alan Watts, however what is important to remember is that there is not Alan Watts to read. There is only you monitoring how you read Alan Watts. Is what you are reading on the page in a book or are you be-ing the conversation? Are you conceptualizing what you're reading or are you Be-ing what is being pointed at? That's the only way you will know the difference between who you are and some concept.

0 Replies

@Dasein,

Dasein wrote:

Quote:
My post was to show the impossibility of interpreting Be-ing in every possible world, and to further show that Heideggers project is a failed attempt at uncovering Be-ing.
I have read Heidegger's "Being and Time" almost 74 times in the past 15 years (I'm on hold while I write my book).

The "failure" you mention is not Heidegger's, it is your failure to do the work required.

Around the 71st to 73rd readings I made what I call the leap into be-ing.

The easy route to take is to assign your failure to Heidegger. That way you don't have to do the work.

The only one you're fooling is you.

So...where is my failure? What premises do you find unsuitable and thus in need of rectification? I do not think it is enough to say that I am 'fooling myself'.
I have read the work (Sein und Zeit) thrice, and I find that that is enough to dismiss Heidegger if need be. Much like with Kant. I did away with Kant eons ago. Hegel too.

But hey, I never said I was right. I have set up a proof, now you can go to town with it. Sound good?

2 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

If a distinction is made between internal and external, then it would be like saying you have a permanent 'self' or a separate 'self'. Which of course there isn't, this unnecessary distinction is the 'cause' of all our concepts and theories. Also their subsequent 'proof'.

Making a distinction between internal and external leads you to re-present your 'self' as a thing of this world.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

If you're dismissing it, it is because you have found 'flaws' in your own thinking while reading the book and passing it off as Heidegger's.

They're just words on pages, if you feel the need to dismiss them then who's really in need of dismissing here? Are those words that powerful?

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

What I'm talking about didn't happen in the 3rd reading, the leap happened somewhere around the 71st to 73rd reading.

You haven't proven anything except that you know how to give up after 3 readings.

1 Reply

@JPLosman0711,

You're muddying the water. Normally that means somebody is not clear on something.

There is no distinction between internal and external self. There is only 'self'. Internal and external are just distractions.
You said;

Quote:

this unnecessary distinction is the 'cause' of all our concepts and theories.

How?

1 Reply

what is the beggining of philosophy?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know