6
   

Why do we exist?

 
 
JPLosman0711
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 08:17 am
@High Seas,
What's a fact?
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 08:38 am
@JPLosman0711,
Are you trying to confuse Mahmoud GH with ontological questions you know were long ago answered by your favorite philosopher, Martin Heidegger?

From your posts I gather you have no Latin, Greek, German, or Arabic, so the best I can do for you is this: Mahmoud is thinking in Koranic terms which appear to me to be an extreme version of the translation of "aletheia" into "veritas" into "Allah decreed it be so" - i.e. beyond even National Socialism:
Quote:
"As Heidegger puts it elsewhere, in Plato and Aristotle beings win the gigantomachia, the struggle between Being and beings, for Being is now understood as the highest or first being. As he explains in his wartime Parmenides lectures, in and with the philosophical tradition's understanding of truth and falsehood, aletheia is opposed to pseudos, to falsehood in the sense of incorrectness, which displaces the inceptive Greek senses of unconcealing and concealing. The translation of aletheia as veritas is related to the political-moral economy of ancient Rome, and therewith, Heidegger makes clear, to the manifold successors to Rome: medieval Christianity, modernity, Nietzsche, and--I agree with William V. Spanos on this point--National Socialism.

The Latin falsum has the sense of "bringing to a fall" or "downfall," which is "only a subsequent effect [Wesensfolge] within the essential domain [Wesensbereiches] of dissembling and concealing which makes up the essence of pseudos". "Imperium" and the "imperial" constitute the "essential domain" decisive for the "experiential domain" (Erfahrungsbereich) in, from, and for which "bringing to a fall" acquires its status as the designation for the counter-essence of "what the Greeks experience as alethes, the 'unconcealing' and the 'unconcealed.' " The experience of imperium is that of "command," of the taking over of a territory, which is ruled by commandment. "Command," then, is the "essential ground of sovereignty" (Wesensgrund der Herrschaft) and, moreover, describes the characteristic actions of the god of the Old Testament and the gods of Rome, but not those of Greece. In a further specification, "command" determines Roman law and right, ius and iustum; iustitia "has a wholly other [ganz anderen] essential ground than that of dike, which arises from aletheia." "Being superior" (Obensein) belongs to "command" and is the "constant surmounting [Überhöhung] of others, who are thereby the inferiors [Unteren]." Surmounting requires the power to "oversee" (übersehen), which means, therefore, to "dominate" (beherrschen). The "overseeing" of imperium requires constant "action," by which enemies or rivals will be brought to fall through " 'direct' attack" (Ansturm) or "subterfuge" (Hintergehen) or "trick," which, "not accidentally," is an "English" word. Those who fall are not destroyed but rather "raised up" (aufgerichtet) within the boundaries established by those who rule; this "fixing" (Abstecken) is Roman peace. Indeed, the greatness of the imperial, Heidegger writes, lies in the subterfuge by which it secures its dominion. The expansion of early Rome through treaties and treachery shows this.

The "Romanizing" of the Greeks conditions not only all subsequent understanding of them in the history of the West but also the historical and metaphysical Auseinandersetzung of the modern world and antiquity. Even Nietzsche's metaphysics, as a modern attempt to recover antiquity, is conditioned by Rome and thus is ultimately "unGreek." The Roman experience of beings, encountered under the "Roman stamp" (der Romisch Prägung), reaches into Christianity and hence to the medieval and modern ages. "Romanization in the essential sense of the Greco-Roman historical domain," Heidegger writes, must be understood as a "change in the essence of truth and Being"; it is an "authentic event [Ereignis] in history". The transformations of aletheia and pseudos as correlates with the imperial experience mark an epochal boundary. "The imperial as a mode of Being of historical collectivities [Menschentums]," Heidegger explains, is not the ground for the essential change of aletheia into truth as correctness but is rather a following of the enfolding of truth into the meaning of correctness. Heidegger makes clear that there is something "make-shift" (Notbehelf) in the phrase "change in the essence of truth," which does not speak clearly enough of the way "in which it unfolds itself and history 'is' (wie sie selbst west and die Geschichte 'ist')". This process exhibits the inner connection of the coherent modes of action which ground Western history, and is not to be understood causally.
"

[Source: James F. Ward - Heidegger's political thinking - Amherst - University of Massachusetts Press, 1995, pp. 180-181]

Sorry Mahmoud - this was not addressed to you and you may safely skip it as it would take too long to explain. Hope you understood my previous posts.

JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 08:52 am
@JPLosman0711,
Good question JPLosman0711, why don't we see what the dictionary and the rest of the world have to say about it.

Fact - noun

1. An event or thing known to have happened or existed
2. A truth verifiable from experience or observation
3. A piece of information: get me all the facts of this case
4. Philosophy - a proposition that may be either true or false, as contrasted with an evaluative statement

Now let's take a closer look, shall we?

1. An event or thing known to have happened or existed

Are there any 'events or things' that are NOT known to have 'happened or existed? If so, how would you even be able to reference it then? If ALL 'events and things' have both 'happened and existed', then why is it necessary to put it down in the dictionary?

2.A truth verifiable from experience or observation

Who is verifying what here? Also, who is labeling it 'truth'? The same person who observed it is the same one who labels it 'truth'? Doesn't that seem a little biased to you?

3.A piece of information: get me all the facts of this case

Couldn't any sort of 'information' be given the label a 'piece of information'? What makes it a 'fact'? Who makes it a 'fact'? The same person who originally labeled it so? Wouldn't it take some sort of agreement to make it a 'fact'?

4.Philosophy - a proposition that may be either true or false, as contrasted with an evaluative statement


Who is making this 'proposition' either true or false? The above statement already presupposes that 'everyone' is already coming from the standpoint of wanting what is 'true' instead of what is 'false'. However, there is no one that can accurately assure anyone of what is 'true' without an agreement being made of some sort. So if an agreement is necessary to achieve what is 'true'(fact), then couldn't we have technically agreed upon anything? So long as all we need is agreement here, why not?

Also, what statements are NOT evaluative? What is there in this universe that cannot be contrasted?

A 'fact' is a place that you refuse to think past. Either because it scares you or because you're afraid that if you 'go there', no one will want to 'come with you' and you'll be all alone.
0 Replies
 
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 08:55 am
@High Seas,
If you would like to regurgitate information and spit it back out at me, that's fine.

Just don't expect me to take you seriously, I didn't even read that drivel.
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 09:00 am
@JPLosman0711,
JPLosman0711 wrote:

Just don't expect me to take you seriously, I didn't even read that drivel.

That was Martin Heidegger's "drivel". You know even less than Mahmoud here, and you, unlike him, will never learn. Ignorance is curable, stupidity isn't.
JPLosman0711
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 09:06 am
@High Seas,
I have absolutely less than no respect for 'Martin Heidegger' or any other such names. Now what has been written by him is what I would call 'masterful', however my post was indicated at you trying to look good by copying and pasting his words into this box and passing it off as you're own. Hiding behind the title 'High Seas' you hope all who read it will send their conceptually 'goodies' via text on a computer screen to you and reap the benefits.
JPLosman0711
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 09:07 am
@High Seas,
Also, stop hiding behind your own flaws by calling other people 'stupid'.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 09:10 am
@JPLosman0711,
JPLosman0711 wrote:

t you trying to look good by copying and pasting his words into this box and passing it off as you're own.

You're so unbelievably stupid as not to understand what a "quote box" means, and what "source", duly written underneath the box, signifies? I'm sorry I mentioned stupidity in connection to you - obviously you are beyond stupidity and well into insanity. Btw, look up "you're own" <G>
JPLosman0711
 
  0  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 09:14 am
@High Seas,
If you really 'thought' I was what all these words are supposed to signify, you wouldn't hide behind them. Also, you wouldn't have to ignore me because you would know that these words are of 'insanity' and they simply cannot harm you.

Why do you feel the need to point out my 'insanity'? Who are you pointing it out for, and what are you getting out of it?

You don't go batting at mirages with a stick, you just know they're mirages and you walk right through them.

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 09:49 am
@JPLosman0711,
...that is a kind of "pocket answer" that you have there behind which you are the only one hidden...countless times you´ve used it now...be creative !
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 09:51 am
@JPLosman0711,
JPLosman0711 wrote:

You don't go batting at mirages with a stick, you just know they're mirages and you walk right through them.

Nobody on this planet is under any obligation to walk through YOUR mirages. You honestly admit you're insane - so stop posting, consult a medic.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 09:54 am
@High Seas,
You are not under 'obligation' to walk through them and yet you have no ability to?

If I truly am 'insane', why is it that you keep talking to me?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 09:56 am
@JPLosman0711,
...charity !
High Seas
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 09:58 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Charity towards Losman, yes, that's true, but also an obligation to the original poster, Mahmoud, who's genuinely trying to get an answer to his question.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 09:59 am
@High Seas,
Yes you are obviously absolutely correct...in fact that´s what truly matters !
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 10:04 am
@Mahmoudgh,
Quote:
I’m a new member here and I’m not native. I found it difficult to comprehend some of your replies. Please simplify your English.


The problem is not the level of "English" but your incapability of dealing with cultural issues like freedom of thought. If, for example, you believe (as you have claimed) in a "judgement scenario" you are unlikely to be able to suspend that belief since such suspension itself would "go against you". There's a neat phrase in Anglo-American culture..."Catch 22"...which sums up dilemmas such as that. If you read Heller's book by that name...that is...if you are willing to risk cultural immersion, you may begin to look at your conditioned thought processes more objectively.
0 Replies
 
manored
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 10:22 am
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

The original poster was reaching for teleology, not causality. You're unlikely to help him by conflating these 2 unrelated concepts.
I dont understand what you mean.

Mahmoudgh wrote:

I think because I have mind to think, I’m not an animal a cow, a donkey, a hoarse that live to eat and drink and to serve me without any objections. And I have mind that makes me able to track and control other creatures. And because I never heard of any animal or insect that succeeded to deceive me, I can say I’m not there for them but they are here for me. And because I’m neither a snail nor a tree and I do have mind that makes me think and contemplate I have to ask myself, why? How? When? Where? Simply because I have mind that can think.
You are not there for them, and their existence is necessary for yours, but why would this alone mean that they exist for you? As many convenient things that there are in the world, there are also many incovenient things that make our lives harder. So, why believe the world was planned? Cant it just as easily be something that simply happened, something random?
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 10:56 am
@Mahmoudgh,
Mahmoudgh wrote:

When I think about other creatures around me, I see that it's created for a very specific purpose. The sun, the moon, the day, the night, the plants, the water, the mountains, everything is there for a specific purpose and I believe they are all there to serve us. And I feel they are happy and peaceful knowing what for they are there. What for we ourselves are there? What for?


I personally don't think or feel that these other things are here to serve me. I think that is a little self righteous or self importance. Do they support my existence? Yes but I don't expect them to, so they are not serving me. I would be more inclined to worship the sun than some fictitious gods because I can see first hand what the sun does for me, where as I can only vaguely guess at what a fictitious god might have done for me.

As for my purpose, it is to live, because I am alive. I don't need or require some profound goal or endeavor. There will come a day when I no longer, think, feel or experience anything ever again. So I attempt to make each day my purpose to just be me and what ever impact that has, it doesn't matter to me. I think adding in any sort of fictitious gods or creation stories or some kind of religious purpose only cheapens this life. Makes people forget about this life and they focus on a life that will never come.
Mahmoudgh
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 02:34 pm
I do admitt that I'm in lack of knowledg. May because I'm still young, may because philosophy is not my interest. But that is not a defect as I know that there are people who I can contact all over the world and gain from them. But this was my first time to meet people mocking at me just because asked them frankly to simplify their English. Thanks for those who believed me. I'll leave this site and will never come back. Will not recommened it to any of my friends.
yours,
Ghada
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Feb, 2011 03:50 pm
@Mahmoudgh,
Nobody on this thread has mocked you - and nobody has mocked your English. Read the posts again, then make up your mind if you want to ask questions.
0 Replies
 
 

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. » Why do we exist?
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/27/2022 at 12:36:09