Heidegger presents many interesting insights, but of course they won't be interesting if you are not interested. What could be more obvious than that? If you are not interested in the kinds of things he has to say, then why trouble yourself thinking about him at all? — Janus
His insights on Hitler and National Socialism are indeed very interesting, and very clearly stated. There's no need to decipher what he wrote about them, I must admit. — Ciceronianus
A singular philosophical insight within an ethical framework is negated by the implementation of the framework — Garrett Travers
unless it is the intent of any who interact with it to extract such a concept and diviorce from the framework entirely. — Garrett Travers
Not sure what you think of John Dewey. I'm rather fond of him. Another philosopher (Joseph Margolis) asked him to read some of Heidi's work. He did, and reportedly said "Heidegger reads like a Swabian peasant trying to sound like me." — Ciceronianus
No it isn't, any more than a true premise is made false by its inclusion in an invalid argument. — Aaron R
Correct. We take what's true and leave the rest — Aaron R
This completely contradicts your above expressed understanding. — Garrett Travers
No it isn't, any more than a true premise is made false by its inclusion in an invalid argument. — Aaron R
Correct. We take what's true and leave the rest — Aaron R
My original point was not that anything Nazi-Warpig said was true or not, but that his philosophy can be dismissed as invalid, and exctract that which can be shown to not be compatible with the destruction of human life. — Garrett Travers
Dude, you may rest assured I don't worship Heidegger. I don't even worship God. Your position is ad hominem incarnate. — Arne
A false premise makes an argument invalid, meaning it can be dismissed — Garrett Travers
Here you are saying that we can most certainly dismiss what is invalid. — Garrett Travers
My original point was not that anything Nazi-Warpig said was true or not, but that his philosophy can be dismissed as invalid, and exctract that which can be shown to not be compatible with the destruction of human life. — Garrett Travers
Right, and I didn't say otherwise. What I said is that a true premise doesn't become false just because it's part of an invalid argument. — Aaron R
Correct. We can dismiss the invalid argument but should retain the true premise(s). — Aaron R
I don't see where you clearly stated or even implied any of this additional nuance in your original post, but I think we're on the same page now. — Aaron R
I think his view that we only really think when we encounter problems (broadly defined) is quite true. This is essentially Peirce's position when he criticizes Descartes faux doubt. His rejection of dualism, his support of intelligent inquiry (of which the scientific method is an example) in understanding ourselves and the world, and his position that we humans are living organisms functioning as part of an environment, part of the world not apart from it, all appeal to me. — Ciceronianus
Being inclusive of women in important affairs is a concept stolen from the epicureans, — Garrett Travers
Being inclusive of women in important affairs is (not so common) commonsense and social justice. — Janus
Rubbish...the inclusion of women in "important affairs" is largely on account of women's movements. The US has been well behind some other countries in this regard. To try to refract all of this complex social struggle for the equality of women, something so fundamental to human life, through the Epicurean lens is nothing more than an example of confirmation bias towards a pet theory which you hold up like a zealot. — Janus
something so fundamental to human life — Janus
But rationality has been, and remains, uncommon. — Janus
I’ve offered to explain Heidegger thesis several times. Funny code is Nazi Heidegger, like it? There, I’ve explain it, not mysterious. Talk about being a Nazi, Nazi no boring... Nazi go break something.. Heidegger funny.. — Xtrix
So, I don't know where this common sense analysis was coming from in you. — Garrett Travers
It's coming from the thought that even though rationality is uncommon, natural human diversity suggests that it is plausible to think it exists and has existed throughout history, even among those who have or had never heard of Epicurus, much less been influenced by his philosophy. — Janus
Epicurus does not have the monopoly on, and is not the sole source of, rationality AKA commonsense. — Janus
I remain convinced that it is an overblown claim that the liberation of women finds its origin in Epicurus, even if he may have been the first proponent of it known to us. — Janus
So, yes, you're sure to be influenced by him, with almost no way of denying it. — Garrett Travers
What I've said is that the idea of liberating women (and slaves and the oppressed in general) does not come from him, and would have been around without him; he was just one of its proponents. The idea is natural to rational fair-mindedness which, if not common, has nonetheless been kicking around, I have no doubt, through the ages. Anyway it's the rationality, the fair-mindedness and social justice that matter, not who its first, or for that matter any of, its proponents were. The ideas stand on their own, in my view. — Janus
And I'm afraid I'm also different from you in that I view capitalism as a disease, and this was one of the points that your much beloved Nazi philosopher also propounded (although of course, he wasn't the first). — Janus
:100: :up:... we only really think when we encounter problems (broadly defined) is quite true. This is essentially Peirce's position when he criticizes Descartes faux doubt. His rejection of dualism, his support of intelligent inquiry (of which the scientific method is an example) in understanding ourselves and the world, and his position that we humans are living organisms functioning as part of an environment, part of the world not apart from it.. . — Ciceronianus
I don't imagine that rationality, fair-mindedness, social justice and commonsense will necessarily win out (they may or may not), but I doubt that Epicurus will have much to do with whether they do or do not. In any case what is important is that they should win out, whatever enables that; otherwise our civilization won't be long on the planet I would hazard to guess. — Janus
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.