what is the beggining of philosophy?

@Dasein,

I'm not saying that you are not "thinking clearly" but what I am saying is that you are rigid, and dogmatic.

"Most of the conclusions you have come to are the result of outside forces (the 'world' and the 'they'). Confusion is your opportunity to take your life back"-Dasein

You seem to read Heidegger as if it were a gospel. You argue that "the conclusions" we have come to, and I'm not entirely sure which conclusions you are referring to, are the result of "outside forces". If by "outside forces" you mean books, writers, other people in general, then yes maybe your right.

But where have your conclusions come from, what are they based on?

"Being and Time", a book, that has its origin in the "world", and was form in another persons mind, is where you take everything that you think and say about in this forum.

Whats Authentic about regurgitating another persons ideas?

2 Replies

@existential potential,

'He' cannot come to any conclusions, only you can.

Until you can finally admit that there's really only you, Be-ing. Your life will be defined by the 'rebuttal' you 'hear' from your 'self' and then going around blaming everyone around you because you refuse to do the work.

No one will ever be able to provide you with the 'concrete' definition you are seeking, and even if they do, it will never be good enough.

Quote:

Whats Authentic about regurgitating another persons ideas?

Nothing. So why are you choosing to 'see' that?

0 Replies

@existential potential,

existential potential wrote:

"You seem to read Heidegger as if it were a gospel. You argue that "the conclusions" we have come to, and I'm not entirely sure which conclusions you are referring to, are the result of "outside forces". If by "outside forces" you mean books, writers, other people in general, then yes maybe your right.

You, particularly you, define who you are by the 'factual' criteria of length, width, height, mass, and locality as if who you are is some "thing" of the world you live in. Until you realize that you are not a definable, measurable thing you will never understand what I am saying. The twain shall never meet.

existential potential wrote:

But where have your conclusions come from, what are they based on?

I haven't concluded my discovery process. One thing I am absolutely sure of is that you think that you are that sack of hamburger you walk around in. You think you are the product of your upbringing. You think you are the ethereal concepts that philosophy has brought to you. YOU ARE NONE OF THAT!!!

There is no evidence that 'you' exist. Who you and I are can't be defined or proven. Therefore, your request for 'proof' will never be satisfied because what I am saying doesn't fit into the criteria you demand. Instead of looking at the possibility that your interpretation of who you are as a thing of this world is suspect, you keep demanding the 'world' or the 'they' to provide you with “proof of your existence” and bitching that nobody is giving you the answers you require.

I have a sign on my wall that says “If you want a different result than what everybody else is expecting or producing, you have to do it yourself”.

Here it is as simply as I can state it. You think that you are a measurable, definable thing. You are not a thing that can be defined by length, width, height, mass, and locality. You are not a book, a chair, your history, res cogitans, animal rationale, or any other concepts you can string together to prove your own existence. You keep looking to understand who you are by using tools (your system of proof) that don't produce the result you are looking for.

What I'm saying is outside of your system of proof. It will never fit into your system of proof. By the way, 'you', who you really are, is outside of your system of proof also. But you just keep demanding that I and others (for example) take what we know and fit it into your system of proof.

You have concluded that you are a measurable, definable 'thing' and I'm attempting to address the real you. But you just keep arguing for your proof and treating me and others like an idiot when you don't get what you want.

Who you are transcends your system of proof. 'You' will never fit into a system of proof. Get over it.

1 Reply

@Dasein,

"You, particularly you, define who you are by the 'factual' criteria of length, width, height, mass, and locality as if who you are is some "thing" of the world you live in. Until you realize that you are not a definable, measurable thing you will never understand what I am saying. The twain shall never meet"-Dasein

I don't think of myself as a measurable thing, and I have never actually stated that I do, so I don't know how you've come to that conclusion.

"There is no evidence that 'you' exist. Who you and I are can't be defined or proven. Therefore, your request for 'proof' will never be satisfied because what I am saying doesn't fit into the criteria you demand. Instead of looking at the possibility that your interpretation of who you are as a thing of this world is suspect, you keep demanding the 'world' or the 'they' to provide you with “proof of your existence” and bitching that nobody is giving you the answers you require"-Dasein

I'm not asking for any kind of proof, what I am simply trying to do, is discuss the assumptions that your ideas (Heidegger's ideas) are based on.

"You think you are the product of your upbringing"-Dasein

You are aware that there is experimental evidence which suggests that the way that a person is brought up, what they are exposed to, the particular culture they are born into etc, play a role in determining their subsequent behavior and decisions?

2 Replies

@existential potential,

This is my last reply to your posts. You will not be receiving any more replies from me. I have nothing more to contribute to you.

1 Reply

@existential potential,

Quote:

You are aware that there is experimental evidence which suggests that the way that a person is brought up, what they are exposed to, the particular culture they are born into etc, play a role in determining their subsequent behavior and decisions?

This is how I see it myself!

I can only guess that what he is talking about is that the {you} is the thing {so to speak} that is without these influences, "like the day you were born or maybe someone in a meditative state or maybe someone in a vegetable state. Maybe not the last one!

The way I see it is that your environment plays on your emotions and I can not see how that does not manipulate the {You}! It makes {you} act out and show the real {you} and all of the bull that {you} have been exposed to

0 Replies

@Dasein,

I have thought of doing the same thing, simply ignoring what you say. But I think that's too easy. But what is clear is that you do not want t0 discuss anything properly, at least not beyond the language that you have acquired through the one book that you base your ideas on.

That's a real shame, because I quite like Heidegger's thoughts, and find that they are worth thinking and talking about. I'm tired of getting the same answers from you all the time, but I tried, at least, to have a proper conversation.

Its clear that you are not willing to discuss Heidegger's ideas, and are only willing to just impose them on me and others, in a really unfair and silly way.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

My favorite philosopher, Ortega y Gasset, said that "Philosophy" began with Parmenides and his idea of "Being." What he proposed was something "Beyond Philosophy," which he called "Vital or Historical Reason," in which "Being" was replaced with "Living." In that sense, "Philosophy" has come to an end. Viva Ortega!

2 Replies

@longknowledge,

...how convenient..."Living" hmmm very creative and fashionable...muy bien ! Cool

0 Replies

@longknowledge,

longknowledge wrote:

My favorite philosopher, Ortega y Gasset, said that "Philosophy" began with Parmenides and his idea of "Being." What he proposed was something "Beyond Philosophy," which he called "Vital or Historical Reason," in which "Being" was replaced with "Living." In that sense, "Philosophy" has come to an end. Viva Ortega!

I am certain the earliest philosophy is shown by the cave paintings in France and Spain... As soon as one concieves there is the conflict between concept and object, and there is philosophy...

1 Reply

@Fido,

What "object", what "concept" ?
There´s no object without function...and any concept has itself a function...language is in "matter" itself !

You give the impression objects are pure and language fails to capture them...while I think instead objects and functions are always changing and lagging behind each other...they change as their context changes...just like human language, on about natures language...

"Philosophy" was here well before Man !...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

What "object", what "concept" ?
There´s no object without function...and any concept has itself a function...language is in "matter" itself !

You give the impression objects are pure and language fails to capture them...while I think instead objects and functions are always changing and lagging behind each other...they change as their context changes...just like human language, on about natures language...

"Philosophy" was here well before Man !...

Language is a conceptual manifold... Language, and specifically concept as words are, do not begin to capture the objects of reality... Concepts are an anallogy of reality... No concept/idea/form can be said to be true.... Each is an expression of truth that can be measured against the reality it defines, and always improved upon...

1 Reply

@Fido,

You see but that´s precisely the place where we largely disagree...I see reality itself as language as information...real objects are the holistic result on the arrangement of such language or do you really believe they are material objects ?

...the best practical example on this are computer games and virtual reality three-dimensional spaces...they amount to code zeros and ones inside a hard drive or in a DVD...and spare me the bit that they bottom line are made of atoms ...it totally evades the point...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

To where I am standing from "material" is just a relational effect resulting from the confrontation of algorithms in a metaphysical language...now why don´t you seriously stop to meditate upon that...(no joke)

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

You see but that´s precisely the place where we largely disagree...I see reality itself as language as information...real objects are the holistic result on the arrangement of such language or do you really believe they are material objects ?

...the best practical example on this are computer games and virtual reality three-dimensional spaces...they amount to code zeros and ones inside a hard drive or in a DVD...and spare me the bit that they bottom line are made of atoms ...it totally evades the point...

Fil Albuquerque speak with forked tongue going in two directions at once...

Certainly our forms present us with a new reality that we can abstract new forms in relation too... People abstract from abstractions all the time, especially with moral forms where they can get away with it... At its most basic, philosophy is not simply a form, but the form is philosophy...When primitive man first put the mental image of an object on to something substancial philosophy was born along with art and art crticism... The object then became subject, that is, as form could be compared to the object, and humanity was found in the transaction... Philosophy is not only object and subject, but humanity and philosophy always turns on such questions as what do we know, how do we know, and when do we know it... Without the form such questions are totally meaningless, offered into space without the means to prove or disprove them... Forms allow the fair comparison of subject with object and in the process humanity is judged...

2 Replies

@Fido,

You seem to not understand what "real" forms are made of, reason why I suspect you must belong to an older generation...forms are the combined result of systems of functions which are the result of smaller forms which again are the result of functions and that is what language is about...atoms are made of sub particles which themselves contain packets of information regarding states speeds energy etc...at a quantum level they are not even material but potential states of arrangements of info...extrapolating deeper on is quite understandable how one can look to the entirety of phenomena and regard them all as pure information without any truly material nature...who´s to say that the phenomenal effects we regard in the material world are not themselves the result of a metaphysical language at work, say like maths ?...

The thing Fido is that you don´t seem to realize that if you describe an object with sufficient detail you not only end up with its blue print but with the object itself...matter itself is language !

0 Replies

@Fido,

Quote:

When primitive man first put the mental image of an object on to something substancial philosophy was born along with art and art crticism...

Not how I see it I apologise...I dare a step further and say nature in its process of evolution is a continuing Philosophical process in and with itself...things themselves, as operating forms are algorithm proposals "philosophy´s" which may or may not adapt and fulfil a roll in the ecosystem, a continuous experiment...all language !

You see you think language is the description of something else which is "real"...you stop there...and miss the point that the process keeps on and on well beyond the "physical" world...

I myself am described from the working of my organs, "organs" are the algorithmic language of what I am...further on, organs are described from the working of cells, thus cells are the algorithmic language of organs...again down from cells to molecules from molecules to atoms from atoms to fermions bosons quarks fluctuating in quantum states of potential character arrangements, algorithms of a metaphysical language...what else ?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Plato understood this quite well...

...each layer is a language build upon the previous one...Biology is a language build upon chemistry, chemistry is a language build upon physics, physics is a language build upon metaphysics or mathematics...which is the ultimate LAW so far as we can tell !

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Plato understood this quite well...

...each layer is a language build upon the previous one...Biology is a language build upon chemistry, chemistry is a language build upon physics, physics is a language build upon metaphysics or mathematics...which is the ultimate LAW so far as we can tell !

Not exactly true in regard to biology... Aristotle did biology without chemistry, and the American Indians by process of elimination, finding what plants and animal parts helped what parts of our bodies, cured or prevented illness...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

from cells to molecules from molecules to atoms from atoms to fermions bosons quarks fluctuating in quantum states of potential character arrangements, algorithms of a metaphysical language...what else ? Plato understood this quite well...

How did Plato know about cells to molecules from molecules to atoms from atoms to fermions bosons quarks fluctuating in quantum states of potential character arrangements, algorithms of a metaphysical language.

I guess Plato knew about how things keep breaking down to into smaller forms?

2 Replies

what is the beggining of philosophy?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know