Yeah, and also people who think it witty to subjectivize everything, and claim nothing exists.

No wonder post modernism is a laughingstock. — Xtrix

Not that this is about postmodernism, but....Even Heisenberg said subjectivity can never be eliminated from the scientific experiment.

And what’s the argument, exactly? That nothing exists, that everything is a mental construction, or that any proposition or truth is impossible? — Xtrix

The argument is that the given, the absolute, objective reality, is culture dependent. Claiming it to be not only serves to favor one's own given.

Everything is a mental construction. Everything subjective. There’s no such thing as truth. Nothing exists. Everything changes— but change isn’t a thing. — Xtrix

There is such a thing as objective truth. But what that's like depends on the cultural medium it's in, on the story told. To claim that's not the case is a move away from humanity.

Cratylus, "you cannot step in the same river once." — Jackson

It's reasonable that Cratylus was a great philosopher and not an idiot, otherwise what would have been the point to lampoon him?

What he said was that if one cannot step into what is ordinarily said as 'same' river twice then it follows that it is also impossible to step into that river 'once'.

I think that this river quote is both historically correct and is true given Heraclitean metaphysics. To make it true, the question becomes what metaphysical assumptions would Cratylus have to have held to make such an extreme statement true? And then why couldn't a great thinker like Aristotle be capable of understanding such a metaphysical simple? Why can't we?

It’s simple: you can’t step even once because, as soon as you touch the water, one instant later it is not anymore the same you touched initially, because it is flowing. It is similar to Zeno’s paradox of the arrow, but the opposite way. Cratylus sounds this way, changed to a paradox: if movement exists, then nothing can have an identity (the river can never have an identity). Zeno is the opposite: if the the arrow has an identity, then it cannot be moving, because identity implies permanence, which means stillness.

The old Greek paradox of the impossibility of change. If a spoon changes into a knife how can it have changed if its no spoon anymore? The spoon can only change if it stays a spoon. If the knife into which it's changed is still a spoon. This confused the old Greek enormously. How can something have changed if its no longer that some thing? Permanence seems at odds with change. Democritus found a solution. Atoms! Static, unchanging tetrads, cubes, spheres, octahaeders, dodecahaeders, etc., with hooks to tangle up with each other to form transgressive shapes, coming in and floating out of existence.

What you said:

if something is universal, it must be able to take into account subjectivity
taking into account subjectivity creates the consequence that it is not universal

In other words: if something is universal, then it is not universal.

Even in shorter way: if being is, then it is not. — Angelo Cannata

Your quote from Heidegger:

“First, each metaphysical question always encompasses the whole problematic of metaphysics and in fact is the whole of metaphysics. Secondly, to ask any metaphysical question, the questioner as such must also be present in the question, i.e., must be put in question. From this we conclude that metaphysical questions must be posed (1) in terms of the whole and (2) always from the essential situation of the existence that asks the question.” — Angelo Cannata

So again, I repeat: not once did Heidegger make a claim remotely like what you claim.

No one once denied that thinking and questioning presumes a human being. To claim something about "subjectivity" (which Heidegger would reject) or, further, to the "non-universality" of subjectivity, has nothing to do with Heidegger. Furthermore, the statement "if being is, then it is not" is also nonsensical. To claim this is reiterating -- in some way -- what Heidegger was saying is pure fabrication, as demonstrated by the fact that you cannot produce any citation that supports it.

What Heidegger is saying above you apparently don't understand, if you think it supports in any way what you've stated in the previous post. Do you know what he's talking about there? Briefly: With (1), he's talking about the question of being. With (2), he's talking about dasein -- temporality. If you haven't gathered that much, you shouldn't be quoting him.

And what’s the argument, exactly? That nothing exists, that everything is a mental construction, or that any proposition or truth is impossible?
— Xtrix

The argument is that the given, the absolute, objective reality, is culture dependent. — Haglund

So the fact that we're alive, that we exist, is culturally dependent?

So the statement "objective reality is culture dependent" is also culture dependent.

To deny anything exists whatsoever is an absurdity. That apparently is what's happening.

No one is questioning that human beings are involved in interpreting the world, or that culture has an impact on one's beliefs and values. No one. The simple and non-controversial claim is this: change, if it's anything at all, "has" being. I don't see how or why anyone would object to this. It's truism.

Claiming it to be not only serves to favor one's own given. — Haglund

Claiming it is also serves one's own given -- the given of cultural relativity.

But what that's like depends on the cultural medium it's in — Haglund

Maybe gravity and digestion and circulation depends on culture too. :roll:

Existence is not culturally determined. Reducing this to cultural determination is itself culturally determined and, it so happens, completely wrong. Existence precedes culture. Culture can determine how existence is interpreted -- and often does. A look at geography and history shows this quite well.

Not that this is about postmodernism, but....Even Heisenberg said subjectivity can never be eliminated from the scientific experiment. — Jackson

The human being can not be eliminated from science. It all comes out of the human mind. There’s no doubt about that. Science is a human endeavor— as is philosophy, as is art. Thinking itself is a human activity.

Our consciousness, our thinking, our language, our logic — is all of this nothing? Does it refer to nothing whatsoever? If not, then it refers to something — something that exists, that “is.” Change, culture, human nature, truth, etc — are all, likewise, “things.” They’re mental or physical or emotional phenomena. They’re beings.

What is the beingness of beings? That’s being itself. The openness of being needs the human, and the human is only human insofar as he stands in the openness of being— according to Heidegger.

What is the beingness of beings? That’s being itself. The openness of being needs the human, and the human is only human insofar as he stands in the openness of being— according to Heidegger. — Xtrix

I've studied Heidegger. I have no idea what he means by "being."

Mathematical physics are dynamical systems where anything that is mathematically possible is also physically possible until the theory is shown to violate some physical law. — magritte

Not really: Mathematical physics. A person engaged in this pursuit seeks mathematical ideas and procedures that might illuminate aspects of physics. Sometimes new math is developed in this quest, but there are over 26K separate topics in mathematics on Wikipedia so there is a wealth of material one might search for applications in physics. Also, mathematical physicists attempt to put foundations in place to prove certain math procedures in physics - like renormalizations and path integrals - are mathematically sound. Dynamical systems, a very specific area of mathematics, sometimes are referred to as classical mathematical physics.

It’s simple: you can’t step even once because, as soon as you touch the water, one instant later it is not anymore the same you touched initially, because it is flowing. — Angelo Cannata

The word "same" means persistence over a span of time in this case. The instant (t=0) your toe touches the flowing water all is frozen in time. Think of a photo taken at that instant. For t>0 the word same comes into play. This becomes an argument of time as instances vs time as periods. Think Einstein vs Bergson (1922).

It is similar to Zeno’s paradox of the arrow, but the opposite way. — Angelo Cannata

Nice point.

You just throw the ball back: "But then your claim is culturally dependent too". So what? That doesn't mean that your objective reality lays behind that again. You have to face it. Existence is culture dependent. It's not just some interesting objective feature of an objective reality that can have meaning and plays a role, it constitutes an objective reality. The very fact we exist is a culturally dependent observation. I don't say there is no objective absolute reality, the same for all. I just say it's not the same for all. Your objective story is another one than mine. In my story you are an indirect creature of God, claiming that existence is objective. Which it isn't. Of course, you exist, I exist, our stomach digests. If you look at it in a certain way. Then what is "it"? You will, like me, probably say, the material structures in my belly". But that's already a culture dependent statement. But in another story you and I, maybe all creatures on Earth, are no more than specks of dirt (no offense!).

Now you can throw the ball back again and say that all I say is culture dependent talk and that your natural objectivity rules supreme.

I've studied Heidegger. I have no idea what he means by "being." — Jackson

Rightfully so. He gives no interpretation himself. He wants to look at the basis for all interpretations— which is the human being. If human being is temporality, then being’s interpretation is related to time. Namely, as presence.

That’s my understanding.

Existence is culture dependent. — Haglund

You can’t have culture without existing. Rocks exist too— they have no culture.

It's not just some interesting objective feature of an objective reality that can have meaning and plays a role, it constitutes an objective reality. — Haglund

I never equated being with objective reality— whatever that means. In fact I reject the subject/object distinction you implicitly make.

Your objective story is another one than mine. In my story you are an indirect creature of God, claiming that existence is objective. — Haglund

You’re just making things up now. I never once made claims about objectivity.

That human beings are creatures of God, or that the world is created, is an interpretation. Fine. I’m not even arguing that.

Being is not an object, in my view. Is it God? Is it substance? Is it energy? That depends on who you ask. But to deny there’s a world, or that anything “is” — or to claim being is “culturally dependent,” is just talking nonsense.

Of course, you exist, I exist, our stomach digests. If you look at it in a certain way. Then what is "it"? You will, like me, probably say, the material structures in my belly". But that's already a culture dependent statement. But in another story you and I, maybe all creatures on Earth, are no more than specks of dirt (no offense!). — Haglund

The first sentence is all I’ve pointed out. It’s a truism. If you acknowledge that, then that’s the only point.

“If you look at it in a certain way”— no. It’s not about how you look at it, or interpret it, or think about it, or about the stories you tell about it. You start with it, and “in” it. You exist— period. Not controversial. The rest is, indeed, very much a matter of interpretation, culture, personal beliefs and values, etc. — but I’m not arguing that.

It’s as if we’re looking at a chair and you’re claiming “chair” is culturally dependent, but all I’m saying is “there is a being.”

You can’t have culture without existing. Rocks exist too— they have no culture. — Xtrix

Rocks existing is a mental picture. In reality objective existence is not viewd on, has no perspective, no focus, is without POV, without an angle.

In reality objective existence is not viewd on, has no perspective, no focus, is without POV, without an angle. — Haglund

But that statement certainly is. Namely, a sophomoric, silly perspective. Which happens to be complete nonsense.

And, non-trivially, I’ll emphasize that I have not once brought up “objective existence.” Being is not an object.

Given that people who want to spout absurdities don’t listen, this crucial point will no doubt continue to be ignored.

Rocks existing is a mental picture. — Haglund

:rofl:
:ok:

In reality objective existence is not viewd on, has no perspective, no focus, is without POV, without an angle.
— Haglund

But that statement certainly is. Namely, a sophomoric, silly perspective. Which happens to be complete nonsense. — Xtrix

Then so be it... Better than having a so-called adult take on existence. Which is just another view. Existence exists. But existence is human or creature bound.

Better than having a so-called adult take on existence. Which is just another view — Haglund

Being precedes views.

You’re just contradicting yourself because you’re confused by words. It’s about as profound as saying “that’s your opinion.” Riveting. But stick with it if you must.

That things “are” is non-controversial; to deny it or attempt to pretend like it’s “just a view” is truly embarrassing. Such is the state of “philosophy” I guess.

Think whatever you like. Views precede being. Only when there are views there is being. Without views no perspective, no limits, no boundaries, POV's, angles, no focus. If that's your kind of being, so be it...

Views precede being. Only when there are views there is being. — Haglund

:rofl:

Yes— because you can definitely have views when you don’t exist. I guess digestion precedes being alive, too. :roll:

Glad you choose idiocy over truism so you can argue for no reason — be happy with it!

Don't get excited! Bad for your digestion tract...your true being!

if movement exists, then nothing can have an identity (the river can never have an identity). Zeno is the opposite: if the the arrow has an identity, then it cannot be moving, because identity implies permanence, which means stillness. — Angelo Cannata

Well said.
"... all things move and nothing remains still, and he likens the universe to the current of a river, saying that you cannot step twice into the same stream" can also be read as referring to a moment in time that can never be twice. But a single moment, say now, cannot exist in a strict sense either because nothing can exist as a point occupying space on an endless line. Numbers as pointers to a geometric line can be talked about, but geometric points that occupy space on that line cannot be said to 'exist'.

Mathematical physics. A person engaged in this pursuit seeks mathematical ideas and procedures that might illuminate aspects of physics — jgill

Thank you for that explanation.
But I often find the talk pages on Wikipedia more informative than the articles themselves, especially on philosophical subjects.

But I often find the talk pages on Wikipedia more informative than the articles themselves, especially on philosophical subjects — magritte

I do also. In this case [mathematical physics] the talk section makes one's head spin!

And, non-trivially, I’ll emphasize that I have not once brought up “objective existence.” Being is not an object — Xtrix

But objective existence doesn't mean the existence of an object. It means an existence independent of our subjective existence. You can deny that by ignoring the distinction alltogether but then you will never know what that existence is about.

Yes— because you can definitely have views when you don’t exist. I guess digestion precedes being alive, too — Xtrix

Then tell me what that being is without viewing

Numbers as pointers to a geometric line can be talked about, — magritte

Actually Cratylus, after drawing further consequences from Heraclitus, forgot to draw further consequences from himself: if everything changes continuously, then it is never possible to know what we are talking about, because one second later it has changed its meaning. This actually brings us to Heidegger, that I already explained: all this endless drawing further consequences is a result of our subjectivity that is necessarily always involved in our metaphysics: metaphysics alone is not interested in drawing further consequences or meta-consequences, the same way a computer doesn't draw all the consequences of its calculations.

This actually brings us to Heidegger, that I already explained — Angelo Cannata

You mean what you’ve completely fabricated.

Please stop misleading people.

if everything changes continuously, then it is never possible to know what we are talking about, because one second later it has changed its meaning. — Angelo Cannata

One can argue that everything changes continuously, but in such a way that we can think of events continuing to be the same differently. This is the basis of phenomenology and the work of Heidegger and Derrida.