• Heidegger’s Downfall
    ↪Fooloso4
    It's a reasonable assessment. Not every philosophy purports to an ethical dimension. That doesn't entail philosophical nihilism. I'm certainly not a philosophical nihilist. I believe philosophy should aspire to actualization. I believe in the instrumentality of the awareness of truth.
  • Heidegger’s Downfall
    His philosophy is amoral — Fooloso4
    :up:
  • Heidegger’s Downfall
    He supported it though. The Fuhrer and the extermination of Jews and others was, in line with his Protestant provincialism, fated. It is the sending or giving of Being, to which the authentic Dasein must hearken. The German people are Heidegger's chosen people, doing God's work on Earth. — Fooloso4

    Yes, your use of the term "support" is sufficiently vague to endorse what I've been saying. I don't doubt he was a representative of a certain set of ideologies alive at that time. I have not seen any damning citations that implicate him as a sinister architect, nor any indication that his philosophy is polluted, which is the real issue.
  • Heidegger’s Downfall
    Does one's sense of right and wrong have to be fine grained and absolute to know that the extermination of human beings was wrong in the twentieth century? — Fooloso4

    Nope. And Martin Heidegger wasn't personally culpable for that. The people who were were tried, convicted, and punished. And there have been (and continue to be) lots of other modern genocides resulting in millions of deaths. For context.
  • Heidegger’s Downfall
    The Nazi death camps is not something that occurred two centuries ago and was not a widely embraced social norm. However reprehensible slavery was, to be a slave was not to be put to death. The rejection of slavery as a social norm was an acceptance of the inherent value of human life. — Fooloso4

    I'm glad you have such a fine-grained sense of absolute moral right and wrong. You are to be congratulated.

    As I said, debating some particular moral decision of Heidegger's, ok. Otherwise, I let the man's work speak for what it is, which is what it is designed to do. I've read my fair share of Heidegger, I don't feel like I've been morally polluted by any suspect ideologies. I do feel like the man has some valuable insights. Your mileage may vary. Perhaps he was transformed by the experience. Lots of saints started out as sinners. The study of saints (hagiography) recognizes the conversion to the opposite as a common theme, what Jung called enantiodromia. Who is to say? The human experience is complex.
  • Heidegger’s Downfall
    That's because rocketry and philosophy are not the same thing. You seem to be implicitly admitting that Heidegger's work is like rocketry, and has no moral worth, no? — Leontiskos

    That's a complete leap.

    However he certainly isn't an ethicist and doesn't pretend to be I think. And arguably, rocketry is one whole hell of a lot more ethically important than philosophy. So, whichever direction you wanted to go with that, ok.
  • Heidegger’s Downfall
    Joseph Margolis told R.W. Sleeper Dewey made the remark after Margolis asked him to read some of Heidegger's work. — Ciceronianus

    I wonder if anyone has ever made a comment to someone about someone else couched in intimate terms the meaning of which was not meant for general translation?
  • Heidegger’s Downfall
    There were plenty of Germans in Heidegger's time who did not fall for the Nazi foolishness, and if Heidegger is to be held up as a paragon of human brilliance I don't think this argument holds water. — Leontiskos

    Making the decision to abandon or accept Nazism certainly is a moral choice, not an intellectual one. Nicolai Hartmann even defied Nazism actively as a prominent professor who refused to allow Nazi pledges at the start of class. So should those who fled not have stayed and stood their ground with Hartmann?

    So Heidegger certainly can be morally evaluated for that one decision. As we all can. Werner von Braun the father of modern rocketry doesn't seem to have problems with his good name.
  • Heidegger’s Downfall
    ↪Joshs
    Yes. I don't favour social context but I have to maintain a respectful awareness of the extent of its influence. The ongoing risks of our social susceptibility to the influences of the charismatic leader are evident, in light of current events. The more desperate a social need the more susceptible it is of manipulation.
  • Heidegger’s Downfall
    There's a kind of magnificence in your extravagant, blithe dismissal of Heidegger's support for attempted genocide and a Germanic master race. If you read or listen to Wolin's book, by the way, you'll find that these positions have their basis in his philosophical musings (primarily in the Black Notebooks and his letters to his brother). As for his philosophy, such as it is, it seems to me that Dewey's alleged observation that Heidegger "reads like a Swabian peasant trying to sound like me" describes whatever is of worth in it, by my understanding, if we subtract H's mysticism and Romanticism. — Ciceronianus

    Two centuries ago slavery was a social norm widely embraced and even more widely tolerated. So whom from that time period should we exempt from moral censure? Anyone today who espoused slavery would be rightly seen as a monster. Social contexts create themselves as norms. Sometimes extremely dubious things get realized as social contexts, it's the nature of the beast. Man can be a very ugly animal. As unpleasant a fact as social reality is, it is a reality. You downplay your awareness of the exigency of the social context at your own risk. Your outrage is far more of a social than an intellectual response, anyone can see that. If it were intellectual, then it would only be a matter of letting Heidegger's writings speak for themselves, wouldn't it?
  • Heidegger’s Downfall
    given the brilliance of Dewey. — Joshs

    The alleged brilliance of Dewey. I'd love to know the alleged source of the alleged allegation. But nothing like a good ad hominem to brighten up the day.
  • Heidegger’s Downfall
    The question is whether his philosophy and his Nazism are two different and unrelated things. — Fooloso4

    Yes, which is what I said. I've read Being and Time five times and never found it suggestive of any kind of antisemitism or fascism. To those who dismiss it, no skin off my nose. Your loss.
  • Heidegger’s Downfall
    Ah. Now we learn Hitler wasn't that bad a fellow, after all. Loved dogs, they say. — Ciceronianus
    Non sequitur. Because someone is worse doesn't mean someone else isn't bad.
  • Heidegger’s Downfall
    To acknowledge and face the problem is to neither demonize nor ignore him nor to deny his importance. — Fooloso4

    Exactly what "problem"? Is Heidegger culpable for something, or of something?

    And I didn't mean we demonize to ignore Heidegger. We demonize one thing in order to ignore other instances of that thing that are still going on. Atrocities are perpetrated daily in the name of economics. I'd as soon excoriate those responsible for that as Heidegger. And those guilty of standing by and letting that happen.
  • Heidegger’s Downfall
    It is a grave mistake to assume that the two are separate. — Fooloso4

    I would never assume that. However philosophy, by its very nature, is a kind of intellectual idealization. If the philosophy is explicitly a philosophy of how best to live life (e.g. Stoicism) then attempting this kind of analysis might have merit. I would definitely see Heidegger within the context of the historical events, and as symptomatic of a global malaise. However there are people walking around today committing atrocities that would make Hitler blush. We demonize in order to ignore. Let's focus on the living crises of human conduct that we at least have some hope of addressing.
  • Heidegger’s Downfall
    the ontology thesis presented in Being and Time is worthy of being studied as an ontology thesis regardless of significant moral shortcomings on the part of the author. — Arne

    I think this sums up whatever substantive merit the OP contains: should we allow situational moral issues to to dictate philosophical interpretation. Do people frequently fail to embody their own ideals? Forsooth.

    It's always easier to moralize than it is to be moral.
  • Currently Reading
    developing a personal prejudice is still a broadly structural phenomenon. — fdrake
    Yes. Sounds very illuminating. It's very hard to escape social context.
  • Currently Reading
    Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies
    Noam Chomsky
  • Heidegger’s Downfall
    ↪180 Proof
    If the thread was titled "The extent of National Socialist ideology in the writings of Heidegger" I wouldn't have said a thing. It was called "Heidegger's Downfall" and developed along that thematic line. It's a normative criticism masquerading as philosophical commentary.
  • Heidegger’s Downfall
    It seems myopic to criticize someone for being on the wrong side of a socio-historic movement. Every author expresses his or her ideas through the lens of their cultural milieu. If we were to restrict our studies to whoever stands on the right side of moral history, where would that leave us? On some kind of remote moral pinnacle and faced with an impossible task. Society is a product of the conflict of viewpoints, and wealthier for the diversity. Heidegger's writings obviously have an exterior, that is the context in which they were framed. They also have an interior, which it would be a gross trivialization to view as propaganda. His writings undoubtedly are the work of a brilliant mind, with much of value, perhaps not for everyone; but our culture would be the poorer for its loss.
  • Currently Reading
    ↪Jamal
    Wow, that's quite a detailed analysis. I'll follow up in a few days when I've finished. I will say that the narrative style of the first chapter was tortured and confusing in many places. However now that's settled into a more traditional form in Lorq's history I'm warming. If I was less of a finisher I might have put it down in the first chapter.
  • There is no meaning of life
    There is no meaning of life. We just exist, and die. And life goes on, and on, and on. For million, billion of years, etc etc etc. — niki wonoto

    Translation: I have failed to find meaning, therefore no one else can find meaning either.

    It places rather a high valuation on your personal abilities and experiences. Perhaps there are people who have had significantly different experiences than yours. Perhaps quite a few.
  • Currently Reading
    Nova
    by Samuel R. Delany
  • Currently Reading
    Suicide: A Study in Sociology
    by Émile Durkheim
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ↪FrancisRay
    I think the essence of metaphysics is that it is always about what is a little bit beyond what we think we know - hence the 'meta.' Some people just flat out deny there is anything there. Like Dennett. To me, Dennett's "proofs" always amount to little more than the confession that he, himself, is incapable of envisioning anything beyond the limits of his own current understanding. Which is sad for him, but doesn't really prove anything.
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    The evolution of our civilization has been widely exaggerated. — ssu

    I agree. The majority of people think they are living in an advanced and enlightened civilization without even understanding what civilization is. It is a dangerous and destructive prejudice.
  • Currently Reading
    The Poverty of Historicism
    by Karl Popper
  • Currently Reading
    ↪Jamal
    Yikes. That one does look intense. I'm a big fan of classic and golden-age sci-fi so on the list with Nova though.
  • Currently Reading
    Nova by Samuel R. "Chip" Delany. — Jamal

    Nice. You read others by him?
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    I'm getting to the end of this book on ontology. Hartmann says that average scientific minds focus only on abstraction, failing to achieve the "overall synthesis" whereby science becomes part of the totality of experience:
    This situation cannot be remedied, but there is a counterweight to it, namely, PHILOSOPHY. It is the enduring task of philosophy to be the conscience of science and to always lead it back to a living comprehensive vision.
    (Hartmann, Ontology: Laying the Foundations)
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    isn't every position metaphysical? — Tom Storm
    Exactly.
    even that naïve realism is true — Tom Storm
    Yes. Nicolai Hartmann describes the 'natural attitude', which is engaging with reality as if phenomena are independently real, which is exactly acting in the context of a natural realism, epitomized by science. However, while phenomena may be translucent, in that we see the world through them, they are nevertheless there, and become evident upon reflection. Which is why science isn't a substitute for metaphysics.
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ↪Leontiskos
    I think the earliest mention I made of metaphysics was that "metaphysics needs to continue to inspire scientific exploration, while ethics guides technological implementation."
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    How might one invalidate metaphysics? — Leontiskos

    I don't even understand why one would want to?
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    But if positivism replaces metaphysics and then "denies that there is metaphysics," hasn't it invalidated metaphysics? I agree that not all positivism aims at direct invalidation of metaphysics, but I would also want to say that denying the existence of metaphysics counts as a significant form of invalidation. — Leontiskos

    I think it is a common ailment to have metaphysical presuppositions while denying metaphysics. I don't believe denial is equivalent to invalidation, no.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    The cows put out 1 ppm of methane. The plants take up 1 ppm of methane. That's what net-zero means. — frank

    Yes, and it also means that there is always a correlative amount of methane hanging about in the system. It doesn't just flow from the butt of the cow into the tissues of the plant.
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    Are you of the opinion that Comte ignored metaphysics but did not attempt to invalidate it? — Leontiskos

    I would say positivism in general represents the frequent tendency to elevate epistemology to replace metaphysics while denying that there is metaphysics. So in a way I guess my answer to your question is yes.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    I'm not seeing this. Let's say we start from today. There's an average of 1.7 ppm of methane in the atmosphere. This average covers seasonal variation. Now we'll add a cattle farm in Mexico, and it's truly net zero, which means that after 12 years, its output is entirely absorbed by its input. — frank

    You are not grasping that this is a system and there is a definable quantity of methane within the entire system that correlates with a specific population level of cattle. Ergo any decrease in the population of the cattle is simultaneously a decrease in the associated methane level. It is irrelevant over what period of time the cattle achieve a net-zero methane balance.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    If cattle farming were truly net-zero, this wouldn't be true. — frank

    Yes, it would be true. This is why:
    This is true. But what is not mentioned is that the more cows there are, the higher the stable amount of methane in the atmosphere is — unenlightened

    This is exactly what I have been describing. Livestock population levels correlate with a certain systemic level of methane.

    The fact of the matter is, we should be making whatever reductions even remotely make sense and actively searching for new possibilities to do so. We have been quite content to radically disturb the biosphere haphazardly in aid of profit, we should be courageous enough to do so systematically in aid of human well being.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    But it's the nature of a cycle that as methane is emitted today, the components of yesterday's emissions are simultaneously being taken up by plants. This is the argument, anyway. — frank

    Right. And if all methane-producing elements in the environment were somehow eliminated, the methane levels would drop. Whether, in the grand scheme of things, a cow is "methane-neutral" is a pretty hard to say. But biologically (vs systemically) speaking, cows are "methane generators". If all cattle were gone, methane levels would decrease.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    ↪frank
    Any process that involves methane, for example, involves the transport of that methane throughout a cycle, portions of which are stored for durations in the environment. Carbon is stored and flows in such a cycle. And nitrogen. Viewing cattle as an abstract point of methane data is unrealistic. Short-term, a cow is a very-high-net methane producer. Reduce the number of cows and you must reduce the net-methane load in the environment.
Home » Pantagruel