1
   

EPISTEMOLOGY AND METPHYSICS

 
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2016 08:32 pm
I was so interested of what Heidegger is trying to say about "being" but it is more difficult than running on the top of the nails.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 2,405 • Replies: 15
No top replies

 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2016 01:26 am
@ECCE HOMO,
I recommend you listen to some talks on Heidegger you will find here:
http://whooshup.blogspot.co.uk/
ECCE HOMO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Feb, 2016 06:20 pm
@fresco,
I fall sleep listening to the talks. Thank you for the recommendation.

Can you give me a meditative term from Heidegger thought (not German)?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Feb, 2016 07:01 pm
@ECCE HOMO,
Try...'Language speaks the man'.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2016 03:12 pm
@fresco,
Language speaks itself, "man" is just more "languaging".
How come Fresco you always miss the last step ? Mind boggling... Yes I know, I know, embodied intelligence is your point, but then, all that, is language within language. Just like memes and genes are fairly similar, you debating layers of language with embodied intelligence while you should be looking at abstract systems in language itself. Reason is literally its own....my argument is the opposite embodied intelligence is the outcome of yet another layer of languaging. The language of Nature. (And when I say "nature" I am not necessarily meaning matter)
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2016 04:08 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Maybe you should read Heidegger yourself, or at least listen to the material, before passing comment. Merleau-Ponty is probably the Heideggerian closest to your interests.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2016 06:07 pm
@fresco,
My only interest is to serve Reason. Will review Heidegger just for the sake of seeing whatever is the obscure point you trying to raise. I will get back to you on that later. I doubt Merleau-Pointy has something to offer me. Most times I am used to be disappointed even with the so called top notch...Christ every time I recall Laurence Krauss stating with a serious face the Universe build itself from nothingness I get nausea.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2016 07:03 pm
@fresco,
As I thought and expected the Dasein and the Heideggerian Being and Time brought nothing to my memory other then the trivial knowledge recall that povs are subjective Unitarian forms of experiencing reality...nothing that I don't know or a six year old don't know. The point that Heidegger misses is that povs fill a puzzle not a vacuum, the hermeneutic circle is a circle that unfolds the WORLD in its NECESSARY order....our lack of certain knowledge of it is not lack of being/doing it...that is to mean Dasein, Being there, cannot express itself without a Whole that reconciles dialectic distinct frames of reference. Language fits povs and has meanings but its structural nature needs no meaning. Rather it provides the proto roots for meaning to emerge as an epiphenomena of language own nature itself. Note "language" for me means system of patterns which is dialectic and evolves only to reveal the same patterns layers above or down like fractals. The bottom line about context on language is that no matter how many times a different novel is written very often the number of points to be made or things to talk about are the same.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2016 07:16 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
As for Heidegger distinction between authenticity as possibility vs conformity Heidegger seems to forget or not understand how Neo Darwinism peer group pressure is a pillar for task efficiency that overrides "freedom of being"...people MUST earn their right to override social rules through force of REASON... when they can't, they are authentic followers, not creative leaders. There is no such thing as not being authentic ! Failure of self expression is already the expression of your own nature.
People are what they are, specially they are their limits !!!

PS - Merleau-Ponty coming next...
ECCE HOMO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2016 07:24 pm
@fresco,
I guess if i am not driven into ambiguity by Heidegger, "Language speaks the man" because language is an object or tool to reveal the being-in-the world. This is how or the process of something, like, exposing the Dasein to the other being. I think it is not an obscure thing to realize that being - in -the- world ,aside from its autonomy express its own significance through intellectual relationship.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2016 07:34 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I rather have Heidegger abstract Dasein as an incomplete account on the dialectic nature of language unfolding the world and man with it then Merleau Ponty trivial babbling on embodied intelligence. Understanding systems and functions within those systems summarizes Merleau banal observation that intelligence is bound to a sum of interests invested in body specific needs...This is like debating Software needs an Hardware to run when it is NOW proven beyond reason we can simulate hardware with software alone and repeat ad infinitum which pushes back the question about there being any "hardware" at all...

My point is that there is only "language", patterns and systems in tandem...no need for talking hardware when said "hardware" is just another layer of software...if you want it even more clear, language is made within language of bodies not actual bodies...layers is key here !
...heck you probably are clueless about what I am trying to convey to you but at least I made the effort to educate you...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2016 07:51 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Heidegger reminds of Heraclitus "Devir"...but remember I rather listen to Parmenides... Wink
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2016 01:07 am
@ECCE HOMO,
No, you don't get it. The subject (man) has no existence in its own right, for Heidegger until there is a conceptualization/differentiation of subject-object via language.
The overview is perhaps similar to a Buddhist holistic position involving ineffability. Language is like a 'field' in physics. It is the dynamic 'reality' in which a contemplative Dasein can exist as an operative agent contemplating 'self' and 'objects'. 'Selves' like 'things' are evoked via language not statically represented by it.
Merleau-Ponty employed Heideggerian thinking in the study of brain injured war veterans. For example, he accounted for a soldier unable to 'salute' when asked, yet who saluted automatically when an officer appeared, in terms of the loss the ability to 'contemplate objects' via language. Heidegger argued that automatic, non-contemplative coping behavior (Gestalt assimilation-accommodation) was the norm for most human activities.
ECCE HOMO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2016 07:04 pm
@fresco,
Do you mean that the Dasein is a mediator and yet an observer, with the capacity of "involving/mingling in" to the world?. but what about the "throwness" that Heidegger is talking about by which a Dasein doesn't have a knowledge about him/itself when he/she arrived into the world? In this assertion i concede that the Dasein is creating a series of awe and wonderment to the world and thus no knowledge at all about it's origin. I agree with the subject-object via language as illuminated by Marleau-Ponty but I cannot fully grasp the dynamism of the "being- in- the -world" with the other beings. Language then I presume is independent upon the being and thus letting the Dasein to know or realize itself in the form of questioning?

What do you mean by Dasein doesn't have its own existence?
ECCE HOMO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2016 09:14 pm
@ECCE HOMO,
I am still studying in college and hardly pressed about the idea which is trying to convey by Heidegger.

Pardon for maybe "misleading" questions.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2016 02:04 am
@ECCE HOMO,
"Throwness'" is an analogy with the potter's clay. Dasein is moulded by the linguistic social world which is the set of spectacles which selectively differentiates 'objects' and 'relationship''. The 'being' of Dasein is inextricable from this ongoing social world.
'
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
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. » EPISTEMOLOGY AND METPHYSICS
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 05/19/2019 at 08:38:04