Would you be willing to indulge my curiosity here? I was agreeing with your point and just trying to dig a little more through possible misundertsandings.

You don’t have much to say about it because we’re - roughly speaking - on the same page, and/or because you don’t think it’s worth going down that road (I mentioned this because I view philosophy as tools of various perspectives rather than each category of philosophy as some godlike figure we should fawn over as an ‘absolute’).

Given that this is a forum for discussions it would make sense to say why you feel that way and perhaps even offer up what you believe to be a ‘better’ framework.

I never denied he said those words.

I see you have a problem dealing with context when reading. It isn’t Janus.

And that it the point where Husserl took Kant’s work as faulty - but I think he misread - and broke out of the dichotomy of ‘subject’ and ‘object’.

I understood. It is, like everything, something that could be refined to the point where things get a little hazy though.

Try reading Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity to him next and see how that goes. Neither I, nor Einstein, would use the exact same language in explaining to a six year old as we would to someone with fully developed language that is capable of abstraction - six year olds are quite limited (they’ve only relatively recently learnt how to connect two abstract concepts).

A simpler way to think of this is by paying attention to what Transcendental Reduction means. The ‘transcendent’ is the sensible experience - what we call ‘existent’ - and investigating how come to view ‘existence’.

For many they take the term ‘transcendent’ to mean some kind of ‘beyond sensible experience’ yet in this category of philosophical jargon it’s pretty much the exact opposite bring proposed with the harder ‘realist’ perspective being the view we’re ‘reducing down’.

A six year old could understand this. ‘Mature’ minds are generally more conditioned and closed off - plus they generally don’t like being told their view isn’t the only view there is.

Another problem is the assumption that anyone with influence is only concerned about their own selfish needs.

Power corrupts, but everyone with power is corrupt.

Nietzsche would likely be residing in Switzerland and saying the same thing as before.

Rousseau, assuming he was living as before, would still be vying for attention funded by an older rich woman. He would inevitably still think the ‘elites’ were to blame for everything and encourage an uprising - as came to fruition based on his propaganda culminating in the French revolution by going against the ‘scholars’ of the day (many religious). So perhaps he would be calling for the end of religion ignoring Nietzsche’s warnings about the nihilistic void left in its wake - and maybe a new, and bloodier, revolution would ensue?

Kant would likely still be stuck in his daily routine waiting for someone to shake him to wakefulness like Hume did and perhaps Plato would be a theoretical physicist searching for some ‘absolute’. Diogenes would undoubtedly be a social media sensation yet spurring any offer of money or jobs that came his way.

If we’re going there though I imagine Rousseau would be the lapdog of female celebrity whilst leading Antifa and encouraging violent protests.

Jovial or not I think this is still posted in the “General Philosophy” section so I would expect a sensible answer.

I clearly stated that there was once an old misconception of Nietzsche being an anti-semite which is a ridiculous idea for anyone who has actually read his praise for Jews scattered throughout his works. True enough his sister tampered with his work to align with Hitler’s ideology but that wasn’t Nietzsche.

Not interested. Like I said, try someone else.

Good luck :)

I meant I liked the way the contents of the link are laid out. I doubt I could answer the questions you posed with any kind of precision because they beg more questions than answers and I’d have to offer several different answers for most of the questions because I don’t really know what exactly many/most/all of then are asking.

That should give you some idea of my regard for ‘philosophy’ ;)

He certainly brings it up, but Heidegger was definitively the one who ran down that road full steam ahead.

Husserl’s primary aim was to create a ‘subjective science’ for use in investigating ‘consciousness’ and was wholly opposed to psychologism. Keep in mind he started from a mathematical/logical grounding - he began by looking at the foundations of logic.

I actually came across Husserl’s name when reading textbooks on cognitive neuroscience - Varela’s ideas to be spceific.

I do agree that there was a paradigm shift for some created by not just Husserl - I’d argue that Nietzsche was an extremely fertile ground from which many ‘opposing’ philosophical and political views use as a prop.

That said Kant’s contribution was, and still is, monumental. I’d also say that many modern physicists are pretty much taken up the baton of ‘philosophy’ and doing more for philosophical ‘progress’ in many ways that many ‘philosophers’ are. I’m still astounded by how everyone harps on about Einstein as the last genius without bothering to mention the powerhouse that was/is Feynman.

As far as I know everyone learns about Einstein at an early age but unless you actually venture specifically into physics you don’t hear about Feyman - very sad :(

This may be a little over simplistic but I don’t see how it can be denied:

What has no meaning cannot be spoken of.

Any attempt to counter this with an example will only do so by presenting ‘meaning’ - albeit nonsensical or otherwise.

Of course some could argue that something with no discernible pattern has no meaning, yet I would counter that knowing this makes the point ‘meaningful’ rather than absent of meaning (whatever that could mean?).

I guess the general problem is in the application of language and highly abstract terms like ‘absolute’ and ‘total’.

I don’t think this is the case. That said, people have been arguing over what Kant meant for a very long time.

There is certainly a similar aim with Husserl in that they both looked for a ‘firmer’ grounding. I don’t believe either assumed the task as one that could be complete - this is made explicit by Husserl at least.

What is your point?

I missed the “?”

I am guessing some people are holding onto the longstanding misrepresentation framed by his sister. I guess if you only heard some of his select quotes in passing you could easily get the wrong idea. The ‘superman’ idea certainly was adopted by Hitler, but in a rather perverse manner.

That makes no sense.

Why?

It’s even used in English. To ‘look at ...’ rather than to ‘have brought to you image of ...’.

If you can provide any examples of a language which doesn’t show at directed ‘outward’ I’d love to see it - maybe there is one or two, but I doubt it.

My point was how we layer on accumulated knowledge and regard it as if it is our natural intuitive attitude.

That’s simply wrong. Epistemology is a broad area inclusive of what I said - if you look up any definition of epistemology you’ll see this (take wiki, Stanford or Britannia as examples) they all state that part of epistemology is the question of what ‘knowledge’ means. It is possible to ask a question that dips into differing subject areas.

That sums it up well enough :)

Merleau-Ponty, Heidegger and Derrida followed him in this direction to various extents, recognizing a prmordial gestalt temporal relationalty as fundamental in talk about any experieincing of a world, prior to constitutied empirical beings. — Joshs

I know you meant ‘came after him’ but ‘digressed from his aim’ would be more to the point.

Some people? I think we all wish to follow sometimes - it’s a chore to carry the weight of the universe on your shoulders.

It seems very much like asking what it is like to be dead or what it was like before you were born. The evidence is secondhand and/or purely speculative.

I’d also say it’s a little like what someone means when they talk about ‘computer consciousness’ without a body - I wouldn’t call that ‘consciousness’ because I have no real means of comparison.

If we can in some way communicate with a bat then we’ll get some insight. Without a means of communication the bat may as well be a rock (note: we can have some form of minimalistic ‘communication’ with a bat).

I wasn’t suggesting we should deny it, just that it isn’t our natural/instinctual appreciation of ‘the world’ thus more telling of our subjective faculties prior to scientific knowledge being laid on top of them.

If you wish to talk about different ‘types’ of knowledge and meaning I’m up for that. The rest of what you’re saying doesn’t hit me I’m afraid.

Perhaps someone else can help you move the discussion along?

It a round abouts way that was what I was inferring. There are flavours of realism rather than a church of realism.

In the general view realism is just saying ‘When I walk out of a room I don’t believe the room ceases to exist, although in my immediate sensible experiencing it does - in some sense of the word - cease to be ‘appreciated’ as concretely there.

The OP had framed some extreme form of realism I doubt many would align to unless they were only using that definition within a specific context.

I have responded? The problem is epistemic. What is meaning is a matter for epistemology.

If you want it may help to distinguish different ‘types’ of meaning? Can there be meaning without humans? I don’t see how and if there can be then what do/could we mean by saying this?

Personally I cannot comprehend 1000 years let alone a million or more. To talk about ontological ‘meaning’ in those terms is always bound by my present finite existence (soon to be non-existent).

Actually I think we can calculate "exact" probabilities e.g. in the chance of getting a heads on a single coin-flip is "exactly" 50%. No more, no less. — TheMadFool

Nope. As good as 50% but not exact. For starters force of coin flip, wind factor and the weight distribution of the coin are all physical factors in the real world - not to mention the rare occasions where a coin lands on its edge.

Granted, in day-to-day speech we refer to a coin toss as being 50-50.

Yes, I'm sure about 70% - it's a definite quantity - but are you certain that it'll rain or not? — TheMadFool

If you cannot answer that question yourself I don’t think I know what you’re trying to talk about? ‘Definite quantity’? This is just word play isn’t it. Giving an ‘exact’ number doesn’t mean anything out of the context it is given in.

Honestly, I’ve no idea what you’re talking about. Sorry :(

In terms of probability I don’t have to. I don’t need to prove the the origins of DNA to say it exists. Clearly DNA is possible because it exists. Clearly no monkey can write the entire works of Shakespeare because it is impossible (meaning it is so mathematically ‘improbable’ as to be called mathematically impossible).

There are theories about how DNA forms over time, but it does remain a mystery. We know enough about chemistry to to infer it came about without some ‘supernatural’ intervention. It was impossible for Stone Age man to get to the Moon too, yet today we can go to the Moon - it is possible that I will go to the Moon even if it is highly unlikely (point being I cannot give you an accurate prediction as to how likely as I cannot see into the future).

Teleological claims aren’t really anything other than ‘human’. Ontological claims are more or less scientific of epistemic issues. The origin of DNA is a scientific issue not a philosophical one. If your question is ontological and/or teleological the I can only ask what you mean by ‘origin’ and/or ‘purpose’ - hence the epistemic issue cannot be avoided.

Would it also be fair to say that a ‘realist’ isn’t dogmatic and therefore a ‘realist’ is more or less someone who leans more towards a ‘realist’ take on the world?

I still find it strange that people think either this or that philosophical perspective is some in unbreakable unity of truth when it’s little more than a perspective tool. A so-called ‘realist’ must necessarily hold some inkling of opposing perspectives as functional, to some extent, or they wouldn’t lean toward ‘realism’ they’d just simply state their position without the inclination to name it.

Any profession toward ‘-ism’ means you hold the opposite perspective in view as a worthwhile perspective does it not?

In my view? You said ‘mathematics’ so I don’t have an opinion on the matter. Certainty, in mathematics, is - for example - 1+1=2. I don’t have an opinion about this.

Mathematical probability isn’t based on observation/experimentation. It is used to interpret experimentation and observation thought aided my measurements.

Don’t conflate the abstract with the concrete when talking about mathematical models and reality.

Scientists are capable of rhetoric too. All they are trying to do is get the point across that a great many things are probable over a long period of time that are impossible over a short period of time.

Talking about the ‘meaning’ of DNA is like talking about the ‘meaning’ of electrons or gold.



Clearly DNA is not impossible? What are you talking about?

The OP seems to have read Damasio ;) I suggest the rest of you follow suit if you haven’t done so already.

I don’t even know what any of this means and why I should try to understand what appears to be unfounded speculation using terminology that hasn’t been defined clearly (there isn’t even an attempt to state what is meant by ‘being’, ‘independent’ and/or ‘known’, let alone how they are relatable in the context they are set out in).

I’m just curious about what the hypothetical infinite monkey scenario has to do with reality and DNA?

It may be worth taking on board that ‘impossible’ means extremely unlikely - it is impossible for a monkey to write the entire work of Shakespeare (meaning it is probabilistically so improbable that statistically we say it is ‘impossible’). It is also possible that on some given beach the wind will blow the sand to for a perfectly constructed scale model of the Taj Mahal ... yet this has, and will, never happen.

Clearly DNA is more than a statistical possibility!