You're out of the know my friend. Welcome to AP. — frank

Left that sinking ship thirty years ago. Waved goodbye to Chalmers as I went.

he can describe anyone he wishes. But the notion of self identification can only go so far. It walks like a Cartesian and quacks like a Cartesian. . .

Most of us lean toward ontological anti-realism. An example of clarity: — frank

You can't shed the Cartesian baggage by changing the name of the school.

Name a contemporary Cartsian. Most of us lean toward ontological anti-realism. An example of clarity: — frank

And he lacks clarity from sentence one. "The basic task of ontology is 'What exists?'" That is the basic task of metaphysics. The basic task of ontology is the nature of what exists.

What are the odds that clarity would be lost in the very first sentence of an article you consider to be an example of clarity.

Philosophy is so much fun. :smile:

Name a contemporary Cartsian — frank

Searle.

And the rest of us.

We are all Cartesian.

There are some philosophical paradigms that permeate culture from top to bottom.

Cartesianism is the most recent.

Prior to that it was Aristotle.

Since H consciously walks on past the sign that says "End of Logic, Only Phenomenology Ahead" — frank

Have you read Heidegger's Metaphysical Foundations of Logic?

I actually had a hard time tracking down a copy of that one. Barnes and Noble had it listed as the Metaphysical Foundations of Love.

Since he seemed to lack interest in clarity, I say every person's interpretation is equal. — frank — Arne

and when it comes to clarity, which ontological treatises prior to Heidegger would you consider having adequate clarity? And if they have more clarity, is that even the test? After 500 years of Descartes, the Cartesian's believe they can explain the interaction of subject and object by calling it transcendence and then pretending that they are not using the word as if it were a synonym for magic.

Since he seemed to lack interest in clarity, I say every person's interpretation is equal. — frank

don't you find that to be a bit convenient? Certainly there are aspects of Heidegger to which all serious Heidegger scholars would concur? And certainly you would agree that some people are simply better at articulating their interpretation than others? Or perhaps you have a different understanding of interpretation than I? Is there anything regarding the interpretation I have offered that you think any serious Heidegger scholar would dispute in any significant way? I doubt if I am on the fringes. On the other hand, I do not interact with many people who have more than a passing understanding of Being and Time.

This dread of unknown etiology is just the case where the nothing is revealed to consciousness. — frank

I think Heidegger would agree with Wittgenstein's notion that the world is everything. And since dread (for Heidegger) refers to no entity within the world (which is everything) then dread necessarily refers to "nothing." And it reveals to consciousness that to which it refers.

then I defer. What is Metaphysics is on my list. I will bump it up a notch.

Maybe, but not in this essay. Pay attention to his references to Hegel. This essay is not complete gibberish. It seems like you're suggesting that it is. — frank

I am not suggesting it is gibberish.

I am not using unintelligible as a synonym for gibberish.

For Heidegger, the only entities that can be rendered intelligible are entities that have reference within the world that we are in.

And dread (unlike fear) has no reference within the world that we are in.

As a result, we are simply incapable of rendering intelligible the nothing to which Heidegger argues that dread refers.

What I am thinking however is that nothingness implies somethingness. To say "nothing exists" is a malformed proposition, an incoherent idea, for the fact is that if nothing existed, then this includes the fact or proposition that nothing exists. "Nothing exists" is a performative contradiction. — darthbarracuda

I disagree.

The only meaningful thing implied by nothingness is that considerations were given to the apparent temporal aspects of being.

To treat "nothing" as implying "something" is to reduce it to a present to hand entity.

It is an existenzial of Dasein (and it is experienced as dread).

Try to think about what "being" means — tim wood

You may rest assured, I am familiar with the concept of being.

If memory serves, you suggested that the issue raised in the OP was not properly a philosophical consideration.

If I misunderstood, then my apologies.

If I understood correctly, then offer some arguments that actually support the claim.

I will wait here.

Science doesn't pay attention to being as such. I just mentioned What is Metaphysics because H explores why science doesn't pay attention to the issue of being. Plus I just read it. :razz: — frank

:smile:

I like that. I think.:smile:

If what you're worried about is the spookiness of the language — csalisbury

In some sense, "nothing" draws people in.

I sometimes think nothing and unintelligible are significantly synonymous for Heidegger. Not to mention that unintelligible is an apt description for the end result of most conversations in which people attempt to discuss "nothing."

I think "nothing" is sometimes (most times) shorthand for those who tire of dealing with the apparent temporal nature of being and/or those who are incapable of saying "I do not know."

They are. H talks a lot about the way science ignores being in What is Metaphysics. — frank

are we limited to H's conception of the nature of being?

there are a thousand definitions of metaphysics that all sound very much like "metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that explores the nature of being, existence, and reality." I am pretty sure that big bang thing fits in there somewhere. and that is sciency for sure.

the best you can say is that science is interested only in a particular realm of being. but certainly they are interested in the nature of being of those beings that fall within the realm of being in which they are interested.

and thanks for cluing me in about that capitalization thing.

almost as if entities have no being.

The question of the OP seems to be about the something v. nothing. This is scientific question and not a being question. — tim wood

seriously?

If science is not about the nature of being, then what is it about?

The province of science is to explain what it can explain, not to claim dominion over what it cannot explain.

And science is no more equipped to explain "nothingness" than is a spickledefork.

it is not so difficult to understand something from nothing once you accept that nothing does not mean what most people think it means. All measurements of being are by definition measurements of post bang being. Just as the tools for measuring light would return a reading of nothing when directed toward the darkness, so too would the tools for measuring post bang being return a reading of nothing when directed toward pre bang being.

not to mention, either the Philadelphia Eagles won the Superbowl or not so I guess there is a 50% probability that the did. Not exactly a solid statistical approach. Either it will snow in the Sahara tomorrow or it won't so I guess there is a 50% probability of snow in the Sahara tomorrow. There simply is no necessary connection between the probability of particular outcomes and the number of possible outcomes, at least when the number of possible outcomes is finite.

How does this work? What is it about my equating trivial decisions with decisions about a philosophical journey which prevents me from understanding your distinction? — Pseudonym

What is it about my distinction that you are having difficulty understanding?

Very true, and the fact that there is disagreement is very important to working through these ideas, and it's very important to not being bored. :nerd: — Sam26

:smile:

I believe you exaggerate the importance of language, — unenlightened

I agree. And that is true of most of us. Language is the articulation of an interpretation of an understanding rooted in the intelligibility of the world. You and your cat share the same understanding of what is in that cupboard.

if all interpretations fit what you were saying, the discussion would be over.:smile:

First and foremost, Heidegger would agree that medical attention is appropriate for some. But he is not talking about such people. Second and by way of clarification, Heidegger’s argument cannot be understood without grasping his distinction between fear on the one hand and dread(anxiety) on the other. And the reason he is making the distinction is to remove fear from the equation.

Fear is always related to an entity within the world whereas dread(anxiety) is never related to an entity within the world. And he only discusses fear to distinguish it from dread(anxiety). Dread(anxiety) is the issue of interest for him, not fear. Beyond that, it is an open question as to whether his concept of dread(anxiety) can be grasped without understanding his concept of world.

we go the way we are drawn
this is actually quite beautiful. Is this from somewhere or did you make this up? Either way, I like it.Reveal — mrnormal5150

It is mine. It is rooted in my interpretation of Heidegger's Being and Time.

I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make here. — Pseudonym

And you never will so long as you continue to equate trivial decisions such as flavors of ice cream with decisions regarding one's philosophical journey.

In addition and consistent with my previous comments, we do not make the number of decision during the course of a day as we think we do, let alone significant decisions. We spend most of our day on "auto pilot" when it comes to executing the decisions we have already made.

transcendence is from self to world, not from self to nothing.

for Heidegger, the language is different. For Heidegger it is world/not world rather than being/not being. And world is intelligible while not world is unintelligible. And our fears are always of something that is within the world. So using your term, is the not world/unitelligible that manifests as dread (anxieity). And I do think he hits the nail on the head with the "unintelligible" rather than nothing. Nothing is unintelligible. And that is why trying to talk about it results in "unitelligible" gibberish.

I am not certain I understand your question. I said it the way I I did for several reasons. First, I reject the notion that "it upsets us greatly we're going to die" explains all contemplation regarding the temporal nature of being. Second, I said it the way I did so as to avoid the inevitable language/logic pitfalls that come with treating "nothing" as if it were "something." And third and most important of all, I said it the way I did because I really do suspect that our first contemplation of the temporal nature of being (most likely as children) ends with "nothing" as shorthand for an incomprehensible outcome. Only thereafter does "nothing" as shorthand appear early in the conversation. For the most part, I think the brutality of our conclusions often belie the organic circumstances leading to their adoption. And it also makes their recurrence as issues easier to dismiss.

one does not need to live long before experiences gives rise to thoughts regarding the temporal nature of being. And such thoughts are pregnant with the indefinability of other than being. Or as Sartre would say, nothingness is a "worm in the heart of being."

so long as you continue to mistakenly presume we choose (adopt) our beliefs, you will mistakenly presume the next question is the basis upon which we make such a choice (adoption). We go the way we are drawn. Absent a counter-veiling draw, no choice is presented, no preference is selected.

it is matter of being born into an always already existing world. Most radical prolifers grow up into that world. How many baseball fans that grew up in Boston ever actually chose to Red Sox fans instead of Astro fans. Many of us are who we are before we ever even consider the possibility that we had a choice.

seriously? Not one in a thousand people would change their position on this issue if you could prove a fetus was or was not a person. This is simply not an issue amenable to empirical evidence. This is an issue of passion. Do you really believe these people are making a choice? They do not "buy into" any argument that is not already consistent with their belief. They did not choose their belief, they are their belief.

Have you considered the life and the paths we take do not unfold as your examples suggest? I suspect most radical pro lifers grew up into their beliefs long before they even entertained, if ever they did, the notion that they could believe what they preferred.

language is used to articulate an interpretation of an understanding rooted in the intelligibility of the world. As such, I suspect that any universal commonality, if any there be, is going to come somewhere between intelligibility and language.

According to the theory of evolution (TOE) traits that confer an advantage in the environment survive while those that are disadvantageous lead to extinction. All life-forms extant have been passed the test of survival. Am I right? — TheMadFool

So far. Do not presume that there are no further tests to come.

Having free will implies that we have the ability to choose over many options. With free will we can choose from the environment elements that are beneficial for our survival. In other words having free will is a survival advantage. — TheMadFool

Nothing to date suggests that the ability to choose inherently results in choosing that which is beneficial. And even if that were true on an individual level, can that really be extrapolated to a species?

And I also question the degree to which the colloquial understanding of evolution is still and your post is an excellent example. If free will is an evolutionary trait, then does not that in and of itself suggest that evolution after the age of free will may no longer be random, if it ever was?

Good post.

How do you differentiated ''draw'' and ''preference''? — TheMadFool

Why are you asking me the questions I asked you?

Please see my comment from three days ago.

You're right in a way but apply this idea to the very beginnings of every branch of philosophy and we realize that logic or reason (claimed bedrock of philosophy) has a small role to play if any. — TheMadFool

I have never claimed logic or reason to be the bedrock of philosophy. And if it is not, are you suggesting that preference would necessarily be the only other option? I still maintain that we are drawn in particular directions and absent some sort of competing draw, we go toward that which we are drawn. And that we do so with minimal, if any, deliberation.