We figure out how well we understand philosophers in the first place by discussing them. — green flag
You seem to suggest that philosophy not be done -- or only done elsewhere in order to be shown off as a completed product here. — green flag
As you stress, Heidegger adds the radically subjective moment, which is a bit tricky to connect with the rest (which is not to say impossible.) Anyway, what do you think about Hegel influencing Heidegger ? And what do you make of the significance of death in Heidegger ? — green flag
I just want to point out that you are criticizing my theory that theory is directed toward greater and greater coherence in terms of its supposed incoherence. You also invoke strong thinkers with which my own theory 'ought' to cohere. (I'd define a strong thinker in terms of that norm, or as one whose work deserves being woven into the story the storyteller tells about itself.) — green flag
One cannot appeal, as dialectics does, to a criterion of coherence that transcends and grounds all contingent historical contexts. — Joshs
There 'must' be some limiting of play, some center. The game is often enough seeing just how little we need in that center. What's the minimum we can get away with ? But if we claim to destroy the center or the universal vantage point (or whatever plays the Role), then we've sacrificed exactly the leverage that such a claim needs in order to be taken seriously. — green flag
I think we have to make sure that our structure of becoming is truly self-reflexive. — Joshs
How can "beings" as signifier have meaning if it doesn't signify common attributes of things, thereby gathering these things together into a set? — ucarr
Being is not an common attribute of things that are. It is tautological to say that what all things that are have in common is that they are. — Fooloso4
I do not think it helpful to look at this in terms of sets and axioms. — Fooloso4
Beings are not members of a set "Being". — Fooloso4
I read the chapters on death in BT as metaphors. Death means ultimate nothingness or the end of the being-in the-world. — waarala
What does it mean to say that something exists ? that something is ? — green flag
Firstly, it entails the existential fact of my existence and, moreover, it entails my acknowledgement of my own existence. — ucarr
Proceeding from the premise that anything – beings included – can be a member of a set — ucarr
The point is that this is not what Heidegger is investigating. — Fooloso4
Being is not an common attribute of things that are. It is tautological to say that what all things that are have in common is that they are. — Fooloso4
When you make claims, as above, are you not straying from what Heidegger is investigating? — ucarr
If not, then I think you need to explain why the use of set theory is not an appropriate tool of interpretation for endeavoring to understand Heidegger. — ucarr
what I was getting at (and it's not so easy) is what is meant by saying that something is ?
I mean what is that person trying to say ? — green flag
I think we have to make sure that our structure of becoming is truly self-reflexive.
— Joshs
I agree, but why ? What drives us this way ? Is it connected to the causi sui project ? the "thus-I-willed-it" project ? the nobody's fool project ? the history-as-a-nightmare-from-which-I'm-trying-to-awake project ? — green flag
You introduced attributes, I don't think they have a place. — Fooloso4
If not, then I think you need to explain why the use of set theory is not an appropriate tool of interpretation for endeavoring to understand Heidegger. — ucarr
I already did. — Fooloso4
I do not think it helpful to look at this in terms of sets and axioms. — Fooloso4
An arbitrary foundation. — Joshs
I am nobody’s fool because I have chose ... [the] dialectical unity that overcomes lack and negation. — Joshs
'existence is not a predicate' — green flag
What are the attributes of everything that is that they have in common? — Fooloso4
existence is not a predicate — green flag
Do Heidegger's neo-logismic contortions -- such as this one -- really connect to statements understood to be logical? — ucarr
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.