Which is like saying human beings aren't simply objects. — Xtrix
Hierarchical ontologies are interested in the degree of fundamentality of the entities they posit. Their main goal is to figure out which entities are fundamental and how the non-fundamental entities depend on them. The concept of fundamentality is usually defined in terms of metaphysical grounding.[79] Fundamental entities are different from non-fundamental entities because they are not grounded in other entities.[74][80] For example, it is sometimes held that elementary particles are more fundamental than the macroscopic objects (like chairs and tables) they compose. This is a claim about the grounding-relation between microscopic and macroscopic objects. Schaffer's priority monism is a recent form of a hierarchical ontology. He holds that on the most fundamental level there exists only one thing: the world as a whole. This thesis does not deny our common-sense intuition that the distinct objects we encounter in our everyday affairs like cars or other people exist. It only denies that these objects have the most fundamental form of existence.[81] An example of a hierarchical ontology in continental philosophy comes from Nicolai Hartmann. He asserts that reality is made up of four levels: the inanimate, the biological, the psychological and the spiritual.[82] These levels form a hierarchy in the sense that the higher levels depend on the lower levels while the lower levels are indifferent to the higher levels.
I see a mouse. You see a mouse. What is the different appearance I see, compared with the different appearance you see? Do I see if from the side, and you see if from the front? Why does this indicate we see a "different reality"? Why doesn't it merely indicate I'm seeing the mouse from the side, and you're seeing it from the front? — Ciceronianus
Our differences arise from the fact that we live in the same world but have different desires, different thoughts, different resources which sometime conflict or provide some of us with advantages or disadvantages others don't possess in competing with one another for resources or opportunities existing in the same world we all inhabit. If we lived in different worlds, there would be no conflicts. If they conflict, how would they be different from one another? — Ciceronianus
The trouble in the West is really that of thinking. When we go to think about being, we (Westerners) have consistently done so as presence, but this way of thinking has lead to an objectification of the world, seen as "nature," as matter in motion, and so to materialism, scientism, and technological nihilism. In political and economic affairs, capitalism seems to be an outgrowth. — Xtrix
There is no recognition here that the most important source of conflict is a differences in the way that people interpret socially relevant facts (different worldviews) completely independent of motive. — Joshs
I don’t believe there is a for-itself for Husserl, at least not one opposed to an in-itself. — Joshs
Which is similar to the point I've been trying to make. But the way that I put it is that secular-scientific thought tends to 'objectify' human beings, and in so doing looses what makes human beings different from any other object of rational analysis; that's the sense in which I'm saying that 'beings' are different from 'objects'. — Wayfarer
They talk past one another , as we see in today’s polarized political world. — Joshs
Human beings are indeed different from other beings, and are intimately interconnected with the question of being. That beings become "objects" is a historical fact, one that really takes root in the modern era, starting with Descartes and reaching its apex in Kant. The res cogitans, the thinking (read: conscious) substance ('res') over and against the res extensa, the extended substance, is the mind/body issue and, later, the subject/object issue. The development of science out of natural philosophy takes it further. — Xtrix
the chairman of the Michigan state house committee that investigated claims of fraud in the 2020 election, and then wrote the report saying it was all crap. This is a middle-aged Republican, farmer, church-goer, who now has friends who hate him. Despite knowing him and trusting him for decades, they believe some dickhead on Facebook rather than him. That takes some explaining. It’s not just ‘different worlds’ to me; one of them has had a toxin deliberately introduced into their system. — Srap Tasmaner
“Unless phenomenology were able to show that there is in fact a decisive and radical difference between the phenomenality of constituted objects and the phenomenality of constituting subjectivity, i.e., a radical difference between object-manifestation and self-manifestation, its entire project would be threatened.”
--- Zahavi 2004 — Joshs
Not only do each of live in our own ‘world’ with respect to others, but from one moment to the next our own ‘world’ changes into a néw one. — Joshs
If someone disappoints you, violates your moral
principles , rejects you, humiliates you , embraces political views you find dangerous and cruel, acts in seemingly irrational, incoherent or inappropriate ways, ‘same world’ means there are external sources of standards of rationality . ‘Same world’ provides the basis of norms of empirical correctness , which we can then use to determine individual rationality. Since everyone is experiencing this ‘same world ‘ , everyone has the opportunity to test their understandings of the facts of the world using this external existing ‘same’ world as the universal yardstick of truth. This leaves no room for the idea that the facts we perceive are determined by a larger network of values, so that , try as we might, we cannot get your sense of meaning of the facts to align precisely with mine. — Joshs
Davidson, among many others for different reasons, has made the same point, that people overwhelmingly agree about the world, and we fight over our differences against this backdrop of agreement. — Srap Tasmaner
Your talk of worlds makes them seem so separate. — Srap Tasmaner
Our individual worlds share some ‘sources’, it seems to me. We didn’t have to intersubjectively construct that commonality, since we filled our plates, at least partly, at the same cultural salad bar, and we took some of the same stuff. — Srap Tasmaner
As for Heidegger ‘dasein’ doesn’t mean anything as far as I can tell. — I like sushi
How much of the difference between one person’s world and another’s is down to the choices someone (or many someones) made, perhaps neither of them? — Srap Tasmaner
It’s not just ‘different worlds’ to me; one of them has had a toxin deliberately introduced into their system. — Srap Tasmaner
But the way that I put it is that secular-scientific thought tends to 'objectify' human beings, and in so doing looses what makes human beings different from any other object of rational analysis; that's the sense in which I'm saying that 'beings' are different from 'objects'.
....
which is why I believe the Heidegger adopted the term 'dasein' to compensate for the loss of that sense of being in modern lexicons. — Wayfarer
Heidegger calls "Dasein" an "existential title" - it is an objectivized form of the subject with strong connotations to Hegel. It is literally a "being there" and at it's core a reflection. — Heiko
The subject reflects on itself as Dasein, — Heiko
How do you think the concept of reflection differs for Heidegger from the ordinary understanding of it , or from a Kantian understanding of it? — Joshs
". If that is not a reflection, then what is? — Heiko
Or it can be what you see in a mirror. For me reflection is more like self-description, self-observation or anything where you are "your own object". You cannot write about yourself without reflecting.Reflection is considered to be a turning back of consciousness to draw an experience from memory in order to examine it. — Joshs
If you put aside the mirror....It is generally distinguished from intentional acts that deal with present objects rather than objects from memory. — Joshs
So, which things, do you think, told Heidegger that about his Dasein?“The Dasein does not need a special kind of observation, nor does it need to conduct a sort of espionage on the ego in order to have the self; rather, as the Dasein gives itself over immediately and passionately to the world itself, its own self is reflected to it from things.” — Joshs
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.