Kierkegaard probably read less Hegel than I've read of Kierk. — Gregory
What limits?What the "ego" may seen to be in these different psychologies that you refer to is not self explanatory from my point of view. Noting the limits in each theory makes me less inclined to state what is true for everybody than to see the works collectively pointing to one thing. — Valentinus
t was mentioned above about how Kierkegaard felt about Hegel, and it common knowledge that he called on spiritual beings to save him from anxiety — Gregory
Many of the thinkers you have been referring to have presented themselves as resisting an error of one kind or another. Along with the version that is being put forth as the truth is an explanation where others have gone wrong. Discourse may require the continuing lack of of answers on some level.What limits? — Constance
Many of the thinkers you have been referring to have presented themselves as resisting an error of one kind or another. Along with the version that is being put forth as the truth is an explanation where others have gone wrong. Discourse may require the continuing lack of of answers on some level. — Valentinus
how is it that he can make claims about other languages' deficit in meaning possibilities if such a thing can only be understood by native speakers, and he is NOT a native speaker of French or English or Swahili anything else? — Constance
But Being and Time carries none of this resentment itself. Was it in the background? You know, it is speculated that B&T does open this door, after all, dasein is an historical construct, so this invites a competition between cultures and their languages. But I still say, who cares. His phenomenology is an extraordinary reinterpretation the world. Powerful and compelling. F*** the rest of it. — Constance
Not at all. It is beneath the consequent moral realist's dignity to discuss such things.The consequent moral realist has suspended all self-doubt and anything that could induce it.
— baker
But the proof is in the pudding, a conversation about doubt, moral realism and the rest. — Constance
No.Do you think the Buddha in his phenomenological prime, had doubts?
So my question is: does B&T pay its debt to the Husserl, or does it not? Does it recognise that it is entirely based on the brilliant, revolutionary thoughts of a JEW? Or is it an attempt to arianize phenomenology? — Olivier5
In defense of H., such linguistic supremacism and exclusivism has been a trend in many European nations. In the light of this, learning a living foreign language (or even just a different dialect of one's language) is seen as being beneath one's dignity.To illustrate my disagreement, IF language is an integral part of the construction of Being, in my interpretation of this sentence, it would imply that a human being speaking several languages is a more complete being than one who speaks only one language. But this is not the conclusion Heidegger draws. Rather for him, who to my knowledge spoke only German, perhaps with a smattering of greek, learning another language such as English or French would have been closer to a compromission with lower forms of thought than those possible in German. — Olivier5
But maybe the sins they confessed openly were just the tip of the iceberg, an effort to hide their graver sins?Augustine was a very odd person. There's something strange about his eagerness to confess his sins and misdeeds. He seems to revel in them in a bizarre way, rather like Rousseau does. But like Rousseau he appears to think he's better and wiser than others for having been a sinner and proclaiming his sins to the world. — Ciceronianus the White
Of course he did:If you ask me, the Buddha had it right, and that was long ago, but he didn't have the theoretical tools to talk about it, to provide a phenomenological exposition on the actual descriptive features of enlightenment. — Constance
In defense of H., such linguistic supremacism and exclusivism has been a trend in many European nations. In the light of this, learning a living foreign language (or even just a different dialect of one's language) is seen as being beneath one's dignity. — baker
his critique of naturalism, for instance. I’m casting around for an edition of Crisis of the European Sciences, I feel as though it’s a book I really ought to own. — Wayfarer
But the problem is, rather, and I don't know how to say this to you nicely, is that you lack respect for the Buddha. Yet you nevertheless keep referring to him. You are determined that you already know what enlightenment is and isn't, and anyone who doesn't match those ideas of yours, is, per you, wrong or insufficient.
I wonder why you look to the Buddha, if you clearly have no intention to take his words seriously. — baker
paṭicca-samuppāda
Dependent co-arising; dependent origination. A map showing the way the aggregates (khandha) and sense media (āyatana) interact with ignorance (avijjā) and craving (taṇhā) to bring about stress and suffering (dukkha). As the interactions are complex, there are several versions of paṭicca-samuppāda given in the suttas. In the most common one, the map starts with ignorance. In another common one, the map starts with the interrelation between name (nāma) and form (rūpa) on the one hand, and sensory consciousness (viññāṇa) on the other. [MORE: SN 12.2, DN 15 ] — baker
Incomplete how? Because it's a short paragraph from a glossary? Every term in that paragraph has numerous references in the suttas and in the commentaries, which have further references in suttas and commentaries.It is not to say this wrong at all. But it is incomplete, — Constance
Why look outside of Buddhism for things to help one understand Buddhism?and ANY philosophy that can help complete it is valid regarding what Buddhism is.
Philosophy, ie. love of wisdom entails rejecting foolishness and lowliness.
Sometimes, this seems to work out in less than democratic ways ... — baker
I saw the Emperor -- this soul of the world -- go out from the city to survey his reign; it is a truly wonderful sensation to see such an individual, who, concentrating on one point while seated on a horse, stretches over the world and dominates it. — Hegel, October 13th, 1806, Correspondance
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.