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.

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 small and relatively insignificant corner of his philosophy. If you find that part the most interesting, then by all means read that, and refrain from troubling yourself about the other 99% which remains incomprehensible to you, or perhaps inaccessible on account of your poisoned feelings..

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."

I await a revelation. Like Paul on the road to Damascus.

Platitudes won't get you there, unfortunately. Perhaps educate yourself further. This might help orient your thinking (it's free to download):

https://archive.org/details/johndeweymartinh00blac

A singular philosophical insight within an ethical framework is negated by the implementation of the framework — Garrett Travers

No it isn't, any more than a true premise is made false by its inclusion in an invalid argument.

unless it is the intent of any who interact with it to extract such a concept and diviorce from the framework entirely. — Garrett Travers

Correct. We take what's true and leave the rest.

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

So, some good work, but unfinished. His Epistemology is sound, but neuroscience hadn't revealed what's really going on there yet, so it is unrefined. His politics can go to hell fast. Being inclusive of women in important affairs is a concept stolen from the epicureans, so credit goes there first in that regard. His eductional ideas are also Epicurean. Pragmatism, by and large, is not sufficient as a stand-alone philosophy, and is completely reductive in regards to the function of thought, which hearkens back to his unrefined epistemology that would have demonstrated such had he known more about the human brain. To his credit he rejected Hegelian stupidity, so he definitely gets points there. Over all, I don't think he was corrupt, or evil, but just not that relavent to philosophy overall. However, I would like to say that I don't really care about most philosophers, per se. I care about their ideas. I have a new found place in my heart for Epicurus and his role in the tradition, but I swear that's insanely rare for, and will likely never happen again after him.

No it isn't, any more than a true premise is made false by its inclusion in an invalid argument. — Aaron R

That's correct, it is to be negated until formulation of the argument includes true premises and true conclusions. That's why whenever you give me a fallacious argument that isn't tautological, I can reject it as invalid. That doesn't mean there is no truth there, but that it is not prepared to be implemented as a view. I must extract from the bullshit argument that which is true, and negate the rest.

Correct. We take what's true and leave the rest — Aaron R

This completely contradicts your above expressed understanding. It appears you are thinking half-clearly. Which is a good sign.

This completely contradicts your above expressed understanding. — Garrett Travers

No, it doesn't. But feel free to demonstrate how if you disagree.

No it isn't, any more than a true premise is made false by its inclusion in an invalid argument. — Aaron R

A false premise makes an argument invalid, meaning it can be dismissed.

Correct. We take what's true and leave the rest — Aaron R

Here you are saying that we can most certainly dismiss what is invalid.

If you were meaning to differentiate, then I am mistaken, but it wasn't clear.


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.

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

You are flailing in the wind. You cannot possibly extract anything from Heidegger's work if you do not read it. And even if you do read it, you cannot possibly extract anything from it if you do not understand it. And people misunderstand what is mistakenly referred to as the introduction to Being and Time as written.

You are the one who chose the word "care" without providing a definition. I don't "care" about Heidegger's ontological views any more than I "care" about the rocket engineering principles of S.S. Officer Werner von Braun. But I will use Heidegger's views to reach a deeper understanding of the nature of being just as rocket engineers will use the views advanced by Braun.

And you may rest assured I do not "worship" Heidegger or any other being. I don't even worship God.

Dude, you may rest assured I don't worship Heidegger. I don't even worship God. Your position is ad hominem incarnate. — Arne

That is correct. However, not toward you. Just to Nazi-Warpig.

A false premise makes an argument invalid, meaning it can be dismissed — 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.

Here you are saying that we can most certainly dismiss what is invalid. — Garrett Travers

Correct. We can dismiss the invalid argument but should retain the true premise(s).

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

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.

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

Gotcha, simple misunderstanding.

Correct. We can dismiss the invalid argument but should retain the true premise(s). — Aaron R

I like you better already, old chap.

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 can always be asked for clarification, I don't mind at all. Glad we're seeing eachother now.

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.

Thank you. It looks interesting.

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

Yes. And the issue with any detraction, that's any whatsoever that sounds theortically intelligent, or compelling, is simple proof. I would change my tune in literally the moment any proof, of any kind, were ever presented, at any time. No exists to date, outside of theories that lead to an intellectual conclusion that 'only' such could possible stand to reason, which is an argument from ignorance. So, until the empiricist model becomes not the most reliable framework, all of those theories have to be placed in the "that's cool" compartment, and reserved for the day they can be shown to be relavent, or applicable.

For example, what can I even do with mind/dualism...? Sit there? Float off the body? Speak telepathically? What? I know what I can do with mental states when I manipulate the chemicals in the brain, any day of the week. It's gibberish.

Being inclusive of women in important affairs is a concept stolen from the epicureans, — Garrett Travers

That it is"stolen" from Epicurus is an overblown claim. Being inclusive of women in important affairs is (not so common) commonsense and social justice.

Cheers. Enjoy.

Being inclusive of women in important affairs is (not so common) commonsense and social justice. — Janus

No, it isn't common sense. That's why it has only happened in Epicurean societies that value the pursuit of knowledge and pleasure as a base requirement for ethics. This was specifically an Epicurean development, and didn't come back to the world until well after the emergence of a state predicated upon protecting that very freedom to pursue knowledge and pleasure, inspired directly by Epicurus, and enshrined in the 1st Amendment:

http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/jefflet.html

Thomas Jefferson's philosophy was transposed to the 1st Amendment by James Madison who drafted it. Jefferson was Epicurean.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women's_suffrage

As I said it is commonsense to include women in all affairs simply because there is no rational reason not to, and a rational sense of justice demands it. But rationality has been, and remains, uncommon.

Funny— I’ve offered to explain (and have done so) Heidegger several times.

There’s no code to break. It’s not a mysterious thesis.

Talk about Heidegger being a Nazi is boring. Don’t like it? Fine— go do something else.

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

No, it was a tradition started by Epicurus 2000 years before his ideas were adopted by the rational world, post mystic-garbage. As far as my pet theory, sure, if you can find something that doesn't correspond directly to his teachings, I'd love to see it. But, it's established philosophical history that these are his ideas, and specifically his contribution to the history of philosophy. I don't really know what else to say. He even invited legal slaves to his communes and taught and pursued philosophy to and with them, long before the concept of abolition, or Jesus' teachings about treating slaves well. This guy was the real deal. Even ole Karl liked him so much that he plagiarised his entire philosophy from him, that ole people's champion.

something so fundamental to human life — Janus

I know it's fundamental, because I value the Human Consciousness, like Epicurus did. Almost nobody has throughout history, however. This is not common sense. It took the tradition of Empiricism to bring us out of mystic babble-thought to that point, my friend. And it took alot of that thought being conveyed to women before they were even comfortable, by and large, with that prospect. You're thinking on this subject is reductionist. The history is bigger than that.

But rationality has been, and remains, uncommon. — Janus

It seems you've agreed with me the entire time. That is correct, rationality has almost NEVER been valued. And has almost ALWAYS been scorned, or persecuted. So, I don't know where this common sense analysis was coming from in you.

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.

Epicurus does not have the monopoly on, and is not the sole source of, rationality AKA commonsense. So I remain convinced that it is an overblown claim that the movements for liberation of women finds their origin in Epicurus, even if he may have been the first proponent of it known to us.

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

Again, this kind of thought is reductionist. The paradigm of thought with which we all operate, is influenced by years of specifically ethical philosophy. Most of the philosophers you've been influenced, have in turn been influenced by the grandfathers of the tradition. The Enlightenment, from whence most everybody's views extend, are predicated upon Epicurean empiricism, and the science springing from Aristotelian physics and Epicurean Atomism. So, yes, you're sure to be influenced by him, with almost no way of denying it.

Epicurus does not have the monopoly on, and is not the sole source of, rationality AKA commonsense. — Janus

Of course not, nor did I mean to imply as much. My apologies if I did. However, where the mystics did their best to hush him up, post-Christendom, he doesn't get the credit he's due all that much, and throughout the entirety of his dazzlingly successful 500 year experimental presence on earth, he and his people were endless slandered by any one who could grab a lying tongue about them. Christians, Jews, Skeptics, Stoics, everyone. So, I'm a little more inclined to shoot him some dabbs for a while. Especially with how much the lies about Capitalism are going around, yowza! Not only does Capitalism see first light, historically, in an anarchic Epicurean society, but so does communism, what a FUCKING twist of news that everyone just keeps hushed up, or ignores entirely. An Anarcho-Capitalist Commune! HAH! That's unbelievable news to me at 29 years old. You know how much I've bickered with damn commies, and ancaps, and libsocs, listening to them bitch at eachother back and forth ad fuckin nauseum, only to find they're the same damn people, split only by mystic woo of Christendom tainting philosophy, and how they'd know this if they'd just shut the fuck up and be sweet on eachother for ten minutes or so? Needless to say, my week's been pretty good, apart from this Russia stuff.

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

Well, buddy, that's all I meant to convey. I wasn't saying Epicurus hopped his dead ass up out of the grave and liberated a bunch of women and gave us pussy hats as an f-you to the crazies. I was saying that it's his tradition made manifest, one 2000 years in the making, and I love him for it. I'd invite you to do the same. Do worry, you don't gotta lose love for any of your heros in the meantime.

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.

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).

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

I don't doubt you mean that. I just don't think there's enough evidence to support the thesis. We're barely free as it is. Russia is showing us that right now. I don't think rationality supercedes the hunger for meaning that is a vaccuum in the lives of people who've lived their lives without what we here discuss. That causes confusion, frustration, aggression. Rationality is a value, and a practiced one, my anti-capitalist friend. It isn't natural, any more than language, or mathematics.

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

Different view, eh? Proabably another strange conclusion dispelled by Epicurus. As far the Nazi Warpig, no, he was just a forked toungue opportunist, praising Marx here, Capitalism there. Of course, none of these fools understood that Capitalism hasn't existed that I know of, just words they tossed about that nobody can define. No, my friend, what you know, and have only ever known, is neither socialism, nor Capitalism. Socialism, because it isn't a thing. And Capitalism, because it has never existed. What you think is a disease, that you call Capitalism, is actually Dirigisme.

Such being defined as:
sate control of economic and social matters.

And Socialism being defined as: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

And Capitalism being defined as: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

If you read carefully, you'll notice only the top economic model definitiom has ever existed in all of human history. And such is the poison. But, the Heideggers and Lenins, Trumps and Obamas, Popes and News Agencies, do their job well. Thus, you will never notice or accept this fact if you are convinced one way or another. You see, if the Dirigists do their job well, they maintain control of the money, and keep you pissed of at just the wrong people, your feellow citizens no less, so that they can plan a new war every couple of years to exctract more wealth from a neighboring Dirigist controller, and convince all your irrational breathren we were speaking about earlier that dolce et decorum est pro patria mori, and of to the gas clouds they go with pride in their heart for their dear masters, convinced its for you that they're dying, and when they come back to all the vitriol, they hate you even more than you hated them. And, while the rest of people are blaming eachother for racism that isn't there, starting emaciated make-believe revolutions and destroying your fellow humans property and killing eachother, blaming Capitalism, and Socialism, while the Capitol Class, the Dirigists, are laughing their assess off at what you're all doing while their eating ice cream in 5 star restaraunts, and taking trips to pedeophile Island at their pal Epstein's place, on your dime without lifting a finger to do a days labor in their entire lives, planning the next invasion on repeat for literally 1000's of years. But, no, Capitalism is the poison, good call on that one. People have to use that rationality sometime, bud.

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.

... 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

:100: :up:

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

I agree, my astute friend. I agree. And I hope Epicurus, and the the dicoveries of that tradition do find a way to come in and lead us. I fear that such is our only hope as a society moving forward. Great chat, bud. Think about that Dirigisme thing for me, if you would. It's important, if you follow the trail.