9
   

Could there possibly be an edge to existence itself.

 
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Apr, 2015 08:34 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I understand your pov from a "dimensionality stance" of all being all eternally laid out. However, from a Heideggerian pov, Existenz and Zeit (time)are inextricable. The very nature of "being" (which only applies to humans btw) is along a time dimension. We cannot validly transcend that cognitive phenomenon and adopt some sort of "God's Eye View", simply by extrapolating from 3 static dimensions to n static dimensions, just because such extrapolation "works" to some extent in the realm of model making.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Apr, 2015 12:10 pm
@fresco,
My point was that, if human thoughts are programmed by something external to them, something physical like genes, then it follows that this something MUST exist objectively, outside of human thoughts.

IOW, you were caught in an unconscious fit of realism...
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Apr, 2015 03:00 pm
@Olivier5,
Heidegger had no problem with an already constituted social "world" (for want of a better word). in which a conscious individual (Dasein) found himself. He took issue (as I do) with the concept of a separation of subject and object. As I understand it "thoughts" are not "programmed" but they are heavily subservient to language ("Language speaks the man") which is the manifestation of that social world.

My own position is to combine Heidegger's phenomenological insight with the biological insight of Maturana who deflates "thinking" to a complex dynamic behavioral process. The word "programmed" was intended to imply that standard species specific "behavioral subroutines" (including those involved in the acquisition of language) are genetically transmitted in the form of the inheritance of necessary biological platforms which facilitate them.

Note that unless you are a hardcore materialist, "physicality" (of genes, rocks etc) is merely a useful concept which denotes some aspects of our interaction with "the world".
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Apr, 2015 07:41 pm
@fresco,
The difference between my pov and yours is perhaps more nuanced and minimal then what it may seam at a first glance...I don't believe in a separation either between subjects and objects...you have trouble accepting objects as such..I have trouble accepting subjects...it seams we agree there is nothing to set aside.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Apr, 2015 12:00 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Language per se obviously tends to force subject-object separation. As Wittgenstein said, “Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.”
A second consideration is a that of different levels of analysis. In my view, the phenomenological level is to the biological level as (say) is to sociology is to psychology. A "nested systems" approach is perhaps about the best way of thinking about coherence, but explanatory adequacy is elusive. For example It does not make much sense (levels wise) to try to explain the suicide of an individual Dane in terms of the high suicide rate among Scandinavians.
The focus on this thread is on the word "existence" which in my opinion only Heidegger has contributed some insight. Assumptions of "existence" as "given" are I think what generates irrelevence.

layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Apr, 2015 12:12 am
All I really care to know about existence is this here: Is you is, or is you ain't, my Baby? Here' good old Buster Brown posing that eternal question, eh?:

0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Apr, 2015 06:33 am
@fresco,
My guess is that you have Heidegger all wrong. But whether he was "wrong" or you simply are translating him incorrectly, the notion that REALITY or existence is determined by human thought...is an absurdity.


Quote:
The focus on this thread is on the word "existence" which in my opinion only Heidegger has contributed some insight.


Heidegger has not been here...and has not contributed one word to this discussion. All we have is you...in your interminable appeals to his authority...and like I said...you could be wrong.

For that matter...Heidegger could be wrong.

The problem with you is not that you have decided that you now know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and you are not willing (or your ego is not able to acknowledge) that you may be one hundred percent wrong.

You may be right...Heidegger may be right. But you may be wrong.

When you finally grow up...gain the intellectual spine...to present your suppositions as suppositions and suggest in some meaningful way that this is what you suppose the REALITY to be...you will finally have made a contribution.

SAID ANOTHER SAY: Neither Heidegger or you have made meaningful contributions to the philosophy being discussed in this forum.




Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Apr, 2015 06:36 am
@fresco,
Quote:
My own position is to combine Heidegger's phenomenological insight with the biological insight of Maturana who deflates "thinking" to a complex dynamic behavioral process. The word "programmed" was intended to imply that standard species specific "behavioral subroutines" (including those involved in the acquisition of language) are genetically transmitted in the form of the inheritance of necessary biological platforms which facilitate them.

"Necessary biological platforms" = Necessary warm bodies, right?

You are in a prolonged fit of realism.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Apr, 2015 06:38 am
@fresco,
Quote:
The focus on this thread is on the word "existence" which in my opinion only Heidegger has contributed some insight


Heidegger? That Nazi-ass Kraut? I don't think so! I think the commie-ass Frog, Sartre, had some insight, myself. He said:

Quote:
Man is a creature who is what he aint, and aint what he is.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Apr, 2015 07:48 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank attempting to discuss Heidegger, reminds me of Woody Allen's description of the Mob's attempted involvement with the ballet....They tried to fix it for the Swan to live !
Frank Apisa
 
  4  
Reply Fri 3 Apr, 2015 07:56 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Frank attempting to discuss Heidegger, reminds me of Woody Allen's description of the Mob's attempted involvement with the ballet....They tried to fix it for the Swan to live !


Cute...I'll give you that.

But you "explaining" Heidegger is even more amusing.

When you finally come to realize that you have been confounding "being able to describe REALITY" with "REALITY"...

...I only hope it doesn't happen while you are repairing a roof!
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Apr, 2015 02:17 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Holy cannoli! That was fun to read ! Mr. Green
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Apr, 2015 02:35 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
It was fun to write, Fil! Wink
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2015 06:51 am
@layman,
Looks like Camus, rather: L'homme est la seule créature qui refuse d'être ce qu'elle est. (man is the only creature refusing to be what he is)

Which indeed drives a nail in Heidegger's philosophical coffin. There is no Dasein. There as only opinions, POVs, perceptions and desires about what we are and what we could or should be.
0 Replies
 
ApollosEnvy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Apr, 2015 09:49 pm
@fresco,
Fresco do not forget your fundamentals. We are not in a war of who's smarter than the other, nor should we care to. Have we not evolved past such a state of arrogant self pride? From dust to dust my friend, I ask these questions because I want people to realize WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE UNIVERSE. There are only a few small laws that we can confirm. We cannot even prove time itself exists, or if we made that up for relativity.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2015 08:11 am
@ApollosEnvy,
No !
What "fundamentals" ? Some ask "pseudo questions" here because they have nothing better to do. Of course we know something about what we call "the universe". You use of capitals to the contrary is ridiculous. The question of whether there are limits to that knowledge is another matter and it indeed may be unanswerable. One function of philosophy is to investigate that transcendent issue. And a secondary transcendent issue already surpassed by some philosophical systems is that of the illusion of "self" as used in your phrase "self-pride". If you have not got beyond that level yet, all you will produce is self valedictory word salad.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2015 10:47 am
@fresco,
And of course you KNOW that "self" used in "self-pride" is an illusion because you are...

...what???

Dictator of the universe...or GOD?
0 Replies
 
AdamLOV
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2015 02:17 pm
@ApollosEnvy,
There is quite simply no such thing as existence, for we have good reason to presume that the Universe is nothing more than a hologram.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2015 02:20 pm
@AdamLOV,
AdamLOV wrote:

There is quite simply no such thing as existence, for we have good reason to presume that the Universe is nothing more than a hologram.


Oompah!
AdamLOV
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2015 02:32 pm
@Frank Apisa,
http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328

The truth, as revealed by scientific practice, can be uncomfortable and inconvenient. If the universe is not real, all meaning must be bracketed. Reality, at the minimum, has been placed in suspension. While it would be difficult indeed to live in a manner appropriate to the knowledge that Nothing is (Nothing is all that is), a system of ethics could easily be devised which integrates advances in theoretical physics.
 

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
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/22/2022 at 12:01:35