the notion that all is contingent and the existence of Heidegger was unnecessary is inconsistent with the notion that someone else would have written Being and Time. You are essentially saying everything is contingent except Being and Time. — Arne
but you said someone else "would" have written Being and Time. That would make Being and Time anecessary thing. All cannot be contingent if anything is necessary. Just saying — Arne
the notion that all is contingent and the existence of Heidegger was unnecessary is inconsistent with the notion that someone else would have written Being and Time. You are essentially saying everything is contingent except Being and Time. — Arne
If Heidegger is doing anything he's pointing out that there has been something overlooked
— Xtrix
It is evident that we speak different languages. According to Heidegger there is an essential question: What is being? He dedicated several books and many lectures to it. He considered that Western philosophy had overlooked, deformed, degenerated, etc. this question since the time of the Greeks. If overlooking, deforming and degenerating a main subject is not to be wrong, what does it mean to be wrong for you? I'm afraid you speak a language that I don't know. And it's not English. — David Mo
Well I'm not sure what you mean by the first sentence, but I'm not advocating for irrationalism or mysticism if that's what you're hinting at.
— Xtrix
Irrationalism or extreme relativism, which is the same thing. You refuse to defend your point because "there are many theories", "I don't know what Being is", etc. — David Mo
Defend what point? — Xtrix
Defend what point?
— Xtrix
There's an example up there. "It's either half empty or half full." Perfect hermeneutical relativism.To err in the wrong direction by degenerating the answers to the point of needing a "new beginning" is to be half right. — David Mo
Newton was (and is) right within the scope of his theory. Newton was right against his Cartesian rivals. The Cartesians were wrong.Again, was Newton "wrong"? — Xtrix
Again, was Newton "wrong"?
— Xtrix
Newton was (and is) right within the scope of his theory. — David Mo
Nevertheless, Heidegger poses a question with a universal scope: Being. According to Heidegger, Western metaphysics perverted the correct questioning of the Greeks. Therefore, the Greeks were right and western metaphysics was wrong. — David Mo
So much so that philosophy needs to start again, which does not happen until Heidegger arrives. Of course. — David Mo
Hermeneutics, with Heidegger at the head, claims something confuse or contradictory: truth doesn't exist ("Truth is untruth", in Heidegger's words). They (you) don't say that absolute truth doesn't exist. This would be reasonable with some additional clarifications --I have done some above. They (you) claim an absolute truth against the truth. An absurdity. — David Mo
If what you (or they) mean is that all truth fits within a scope, that is not denied by anyone outside the field of rationalist metaphysics. It is a rather trivial truth. But it does not prevent us from saying that, according to Heidegger's own words, the Greeks were right in the face of scholastic medieval metaphysics or Cartesian rationalism, for example. — David Mo
Of course, like every prophet, — David Mo
Heidegger changed his theory later because he wanted to and reserved the truth for poetry. — David Mo
I document what I say with primary and secondary sources. You seem to ignore both. For example:Sorry to say, but this is once again sounding like something from a secondary source. — Xtrix
But Heidegger doesn't think of it as "perverted" or "wrong." — Xtrix
But now we leap over this whole process of deformation and
decline, and we seek to win back intact the naming force of lan-
guage and words; for words and language are not just shells into
which things are packed for spoken and written intercourse. In the
word, in language, things first come to be and are. For this reason,
too, the misuse of language in mere idle talk, in slogans and phrases,
destroys our genuine relation to things. (11/15)
Heidegger understands truth as aletheia. He describes it with various words that refer to a revelation or unveiling of the concealed. (Very poetic). Cf. Being and Time (223/265). That's what I'm talking about. I don't know what other sense you're talking about.What "truth"? In Heidegger, it means something very different. — Xtrix
I don't know what scope that is. What do you mean by "presence"?Exactly. Philosophers of the last 2,500 are right within the scope of "presencing." — Xtrix
Being is a cipher. — Gary M Washburn
He stated, and later denied he stated, a lot of things. Most famously, to 'be is to exist'. right there in black and white at the start of B&T. — Gary M Washburn
Audacity is an essential characteristic of knowledge. No Galileo, Newton, Einstein or Bohr would have been possible without it. But audacity should not be confused with irresponsibility. True cognitive audacity exposes its idea to a verdict where it can be either false or true. Audacity is not required when it is said to be true because I want it and let whoever wants me follow me. This is the audacity of a prophet... and Heidegger's. Very little audacity when nothing is at stake.Everything that ensues is in error, and yet the terms of recognizing how little we know depend upon our daring to be wrong. — Gary M Washburn
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.