You did not address the questions I asked.

If you do so I will address your criticism of the Greeks. I will say this much. I do not mean Greek culture but the Greek philosophers, particularly Plato and Aristotle.

Heidegger absorbs the anti-semitic tropes from his culture, — Joshs

What does this mean? Is absorbs another word for accepts? Does his reinterpreting them liberate him from these prejudices? Or does his thinking not rise above the pedestrian?

For instance, he rejects the biological, racialized concept of jewry. — Joshs

Yes, if only they would act less like Jews.

The essence of a thing, including ethical values, is to be found in the contextual particularity↪Fooloso4 of our involvement with it. this precludes universalizing ethics. — Joshs

And how does an understanding of Being relate to the contextual particularity of our involvement?

Greek ethical notions such as phronesis and areti are in opposition to universalizing ethics, and manage quite well without embracing Heidegger's destining of Being.

The essence of a thing is not the meaning of Being. Our involvement with it can take many forms, including building extermination camps.

One cannot properly think responsibility and justice without an understanding of Being. The question of Being is in its essence an ethical question. — Joshs

This requires an explanation. What is the connection between Being and ethics? Rather than address this you invoke the names of Focault, Deleuze, Guattari, and Derrida, but still no defense or explanation of your claim.

you’re looking for a prescriptive ethics — Joshs

No, not at all.

Not every philosophy purports to an ethical dimension. — Pantagruel

The problem is evident in the Introduction to Being and Time. Heidegger claims that the question of the meaning of Being is the fundamental question, the human question. H. says that we must make the inquirer, Dasein, transparent in his own Being. To ignore the ethical dimension of human being is to make what he intends to make transparent opaque. We are not only social animals, we are ethical animals, even if we do not always speak or act that way.

From an earlier post in this thread, quoting from Heidegger's The Beginning of Western Thinking: Heraclitus. Quoted by Wolin:

The danger is not [National Socialism] itself, but instead that it will be innocuous via sermons about the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. — Fooloso4

The absence of the Just should be noted. Heidegger replaces it with the True. Was the substitution intentional? An indication of Heidegger's disregard for man as anything more than a mouthpiece for Being?

Basic to the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle is the desire for and pursuit of the good. This must be understood at the most ordinary level, not as a theory but simply as what we want both for ourselves and those we care about. It is not only basic to their philosophy but basic to their understanding of who we are as human beings.

For Heidegger consideration of the good is replaced with the call of conscience. The call of conscience is not about what is good or bad, it is the call for authenticity. Its primary concern is not oneself or others but Being. He sees Plato's elevation of the Good above being, that is, as the source of both being and being known, as a move away from, a forgetting of Being. — Fooloso4

That doesn't entail philosophical nihilism. — Pantagruel

Because of the centrality of Dasein, in this case it does.

But I complain about how some consider some media more reliable than another, when all of them are part of the same problem. — javi2541997

Some sources are more reliable than others. Which is not to say that any source always gets everything right.

For the word "slab" to correspond with the object slab, then the word is "pointing" at the object. — RussellA

The word has a specific meaning in the builder's language game. That does not translate to how it might be used elsewhere.

Imagine the builder pointing to a slab and saying slab. His helper now points to the slab and says slab. We might call this the "pointing language game or maybe the "name game". It cannot be called the 'builder's language game". What is the point of all this pointing?

the media manipulate us — javi2541997

There is no single entity "the media". Fox News is a member of the media. All those sources that are competing to be to the right of Fox are members of the media.

Does that mean you agree with the statement or that you approve of philosophical nihilism?

As the meaning of "unicorn" in language doesn't depend on the existence of a unicorn in the world, — RussellA

Whatever one might mean when uttering the word 'slab', it has a specific meaning in the builder's language game. In that game 'slab' gets its meaning from its role in the activity of building. They are not building with unicorns or other imaginary objects. "Unicorn" has no place or role or function in this game. It is a complete but limited language.

what kind of object is being referred to in the Philosophical Investigations. — RussellA

Several objects are referred to in the PI.

Yes, your use of the term "support" is sufficiently vague to endorse what I've been saying. — Pantagruel

Reading his Rectoral Address should give you some idea of what support means.

...any indication that his philosophy is polluted, which is the real issue. — Pantagruel

His philosophy is amoral. No distinction is made in order to distinguish between what Being gives, which is to be accepted and supported, and what is to be rejected. He does, however, make use of the distinction for example in his criticism of technology.

It is as if he were to criticize the death camps because of their efficiency.

1) "the meaning of the word "slab" does not depend on the existence of slabs"
2) "slabs do exist in the world" — RussellA

The meaning of the word 'slab' in the builder's language depends on two things:

1. The existence of these objects.

2. What the assistant is to do with them.

The meaning is not the name of the object.

And Martin Heidegger wasn't personally culpable for that. — Pantagruel

He supported it though. The Fuhrer and the extermination of Jews and others was, in line with his Protestant provincialism, fated. It is the sending or giving of Being, to which the authentic Dasein must hearken. The German people are Heidegger's chosen people, doing God's work on Earth.

a fine-grained sense of absolute moral right and wrong. — Pantagruel

Does one's sense of right and wrong have to be fine grained and absolute to know that the extermination of human beings was wrong in the twentieth century?

I do feel like the man has some valuable insights. — Pantagruel

I agree.

Lots of saints — Pantagruel

Saint Martin Heidegger?

seems to indicate his inability — Joshs

What do you mean by inability?

As long as I am name dropping I read Heidegger with William Richardson. This was before the current attention focusing on Heidegger's affiliation with the Nazi, but even back then there were those who made the connection.

I asked Richardson about it. He was visibly troubled and admitted that he was not able to reconcile it. But we continued to read Heidegger and I continued to read him after that and read him with some of my students after that.

Joseph Margolis told R.W. Sleeper Dewey made the remark after Margolis asked him to read some of Heidegger's work. — Ciceronianus

Did you know Joe Margolis? He was my thesis advisor. Margolis, a self-professed relativist who stressed the importance of cultural and historical situatedness, would not accept the kind of Heidegger apologetic we see here.

Two centuries ago slavery was a social norm widely embraced and even more widely tolerated. — Pantagruel

The Nazi death camps is not something that occurred two centuries ago and was not a widely embraced social norm. However reprehensible slavery was, to be a slave was not to be put to death. The rejection of slavery as a social norm was an acceptance of the inherent value of human life.

Your outrage is far more of a social than an intellectual response, — Pantagruel

I reject this kind of intellectualist nihilistic historical relativism that separates thinking from being. We are not talking about abstract entities but human beings. There are always those who are not intellectually imprisoned by social norms, those who look beyond what is to what ought to be. Heidegger was not one of them. But even this is to grant Heidegger too much. Any decent person at that time could see that what the Nazis were doing was wrong.

Yes, I think it is possible Trump lost the election and tried to take it back by potentially illegally means. — NOS4A2

Well, that is a step in the right direction, but you leave the back door open. To say that it is possible he lost is to say it is possible he did not lose. If he lost then attempts to "take it back", no matter by the means, is illegal. To act on the possibility he did not lose when the evidence points unquestionably to the fact that he did lose is to act irresponsibly and any lawyer who knowingly attempts to "take it back" demonstrates either a disregard for the law or in inability to deal with reality. In either case, they are unfit to practice law.

There is nothing wrong with contesting an election. — NOS4A2

Contesting an election and attempting to overturn an election are two different things. As much as you attempt for it to be otherwise this is not a partisan issue.

After asking you three times you still have not said whether you think it is wrong to attempt to overturn an election.

There is something wrong with McCarthyism and seeking to disbar and ostracize people who do contest elections. — NOS4A2

There is a telling connection between Trump and McCarthy - Trump's mentor, Roy Cohn.

Exactly what "problem"? — Pantagruel

His support of Nazism.

Is Heidegger culpable for something, or of something? — Pantagruel

Read his Rectoral Address

On a more individual basis there is his treatment of Jewish students.

Atrocities are perpetrated daily in the name of economics. I'd as soon excoriate those responsible for that as Heidegger. — Pantagruel

We do not have to pick one or the other.

The question is whether his philosophy and his Nazism are two different and unrelated things.

philosophy, by its very nature, is a kind of intellectual idealization. — Pantagruel

That may be one way in which it is practiced but intellectual idealization is not what philosophy is by its very nature. I think Heidegger would reject that claim.

We demonize in order to ignore. — Pantagruel

To acknowledge and face the problem is to neither demonize nor ignore him nor to deny his importance.

should we allow situational moral issues to to dictate philosophical interpretation. — Pantagruel

It is a grave mistake to assume that the two are separate. "Situational ethics" trivializes the extermination of groups of people. Central to Heidegger's "philosophical interpretation" is the preeminent place and role of human beings.That some human beings, the German Volk, are to play an important world historical role and others are not simply to be ignored or excluded but round up and put in death camps, is evidence of the troubling failure of his philosophical interpretation.

I never said it was a Democrat vs Republican issue, I’m afraid, so your argument means nothing. — NOS4A2

You accused me of hiding something and identified four key points. The first of your key points was that the project was started by a Democrat.

Dershowitz (a Democrat) — NOS4A2

He was a Democrat. He says he has been excluded. His resentment against the Democrats is evident. This is his membership card to the Party of Trump.

Who cares about their party affiliation? — NOS4A2

Apparently you do, until you don't. But then again you do:

A dark money group with ties to Democratic Party heavyweights ...
This, according to Fooloso, is a bipartisan effort ... — NOS4A2

In all this pointing to and then denying the importance of party affiliation, you overlook the main issue:

Election integrity. I'll ask you for the third time. Do you think that there is nothing wrong with an attempt to overturn the election?

Your emphasis does nothing but distract from what you’re trying to hide. — NOS4A2

I am not trying to hide anything. Let's look at your key points:

1. As I said, this is not a Democrat vs Republican issue, as your point 4 supports. The reason why most are Democrats is because most Republicans lack to backbone to stand against Trump and his efforts to overturn the election.

2. Brad Carver's case was dismissed. So? He is one out of over 100 they are targeting. Do you really think that one case being dismissed means that over 100 lawyers did not attempt to overturn the election? Or do you think that there is nothing wrong with an attempt to overturn the election?

3. Yes. They have made their intentions clear: deterring lawyers from attempts to overturn future legitimate elections. Again, do you think that there is nothing wrong with an attempt to overturn the election?

4. Daschle, a Democrat is a member of the advisory board. Paul Rosenzweig, as I pointed out, is a conservative and member of the Federalist Society. A Democrat and a Republican working together to preserve election integrity. Sounds suspicious! I better hide that.

I don’t care about the complaint of anti-Trump forces ... — NOS4A2

Of course you don't. At least now that it is clear you can't spin it the way you want. You brought it up.

Some key points in the Axios article:

1.The group is working to expose and try to disbar lawyers who worked on Donald Trump’s post-election lawsuit.

None of those lawsuits were found to have merit and those who attempt to overturn an election should be exposed. Those who seek to bring it to light do not operate in the shadows.

2.The 65 Project hopes to deter right-wing legal talent from signing on to any future GOP efforts to overturn elections.

3 Advisory board members include Paul Rosenzweig, a conservative and member of the Federalist Society.

Meritless efforts to overturn an election should not be tolerated.

I was just listing the typical anti-Trumpism he faced — NOS4A2

Obviously, you did not read the complaint against Dershowitz. Your spurious allegation that the 65 Project is shadowy is without evidence. This is a typical Trumpian tactic, attempt to discredit anyone who attempts to bring to light to the actions of Trump and his minions.

Dershowitz and others whose lawsuit, Lake v Hobbs, against the Grand Canyon State’s election process, failed and Dershowitz and the others were sactioned. For details.

Why would you pretend I said the complaint against Dershowitz has something to do with him being a social outcast? — NOS4A2

You say that he has illustrated how shadowy legal groups like The 65 Project have sought to disbar and condemn the lawyers who work for Trump. How has he illustrated this? In the next sentence you say he notes how he has been effectively alienated from his usual social group because he had the gall to believe that one particular defendent deserved representation.

One has nothing to do with the other, but you move from the one to the other as if it is all one and the same. Until you are called out on it. His defense of Trump in the first impeachment has nothing to do with the 65 Project's complaint against him. He, like Trump, wants to play the victim.

As usual, short on facts and long on hyperbole and misrepresentation. The complaint against Dershowitz has nothing to do with him being a social outcast.

But from a single example, the child cannot know what "table" is referring to. — RussellA

Right, but life with a child is not a matter of single examples.

Only by experiencing many examples will the child be able to discover a family resemblance in the examples and narrow down the meaning of "table" to what we know as the concept "table". — RussellA

The child does not think in terms of 'family resemblance', but rather she learns which things are and are not called tables. It is only much later that she might ask what all these things have in common other than being tables. But whether such a question occurs to her or not, that is not how a language is learned or how it functions.

It is not the job of a criminal lawyer to aid and abet criminal activity. After the fact, the lawyer's job is to establish that there was no criminal activity.

Witty's Tractatus where he just starts with the assumption about objects, as if the ontological work of positing this view doesn't even need to be explained. — schopenhauer1

The objects and names discussed in the PI are not the simple objects and names of the Tractatus.

If things in the child's world are not named, how does the child learn the names of things. — RussellA

They are named, but the name of things in the child's world are not generally learned by going around pointing.

The child must already know what a table is if the child knows the toy is on top of it. — RussellA

This is how he learns what a table is - it is what the toy is on. It is where we sit to eat.

Every table in the world is different in some way. — RussellA

Yes, and some things that are not tables may be the same as a table in some way. A child might call a horse a big dog. He is eventually corrected. He might then call a cow a horse. He is eventually corrected. For the time being, however, 'big dog' may be sufficient. In time he learns that some differences do not matter for what a thing is called and others do.

How does a child learn a new word, such as "table". They are shown many examples of things, similar in some way, but all different, and as Wittgenstein says, having family resemblances. Each particular thing is a token of a general type.

We know when the child understands the meaning of the word "table", when we ask the child to point to a "table" ... — RussellA

This is a very odd picture. No one goes around pointing to various things in the child's world and naming them. A child learns the word 'table' in the context of her life. Where her food or toy is on the table, or she is under the table, or has bumped into the table and hurt herself.

They know how to use the word. — RussellA

Pointing to objects is not how we use words. We know she understands the word 'table' not because she points to it but because when we tell her the toy is on the table she knows were to look.

The concept "table" only exists in the mind and not the world. What exists in the world are particular examples, particular instantiations, of our concept of the word "table". — RussellA

For the child what exists are not examples or instantiations of concepts. What exists are the things she encounters and uses, the things she learns to call 'table' and 'chair'. She does not begin at the level of concepts.

The word "table" in the sentence "bring me a table" is not referring to a table in the world ... — RussellA

Of course it is! What is she to bring if not a table in the world? She learns that some of the things she might brings are tables and others are not. She learns that the coffee table is a table even though it different than the kitchen table and that the stool is not a table even though her toy is on it.

As I read On Certainty it is not that one cannot doubt but that we do not doubt.

We are certain that the Earth revolves around the sun. In earlier times people were certain that the Sun revolved around the Earth. The Copernican Revolution was not simply a matter of exchanging places. It is that man is displaced from the center.

140. We do not learn the practice of making empirical judgments by learning rules: we are taught
judgments and their connexion with other judgments. A totality of judgments is made plausible to
us.
141. When we first begin to believe anything, what we believe is not a single proposition, it is a
whole system of propositions. (Light dawns gradually over the whole.)
142. It is not single axioms that strike me as obvious, it is a system in which consequences and
premises give one another mutual support.

152. I do not explicitly learn the propositions that stand fast for me. I can discover them
subsequently like the axis around which a body rotates. This axis is not fixed in the sense that
anything holds it fast, but the movement around it determines its immobility.

305. Here once more there is needed a step like the one taken in relativity theory.

The chorus is an independent voice. Part of the ventriloquist's joke is that the dummy has an independent voice.

It is an interesting question to what extent the voice of the law in the Crito differ from that of the law itself.

As you say, Wittgenstein is responding to Augustine. — RussellA

This picture of language is the picture drawn in the Tractatus.

1) As with Augustine, the word "slab" gets its meaning from referring to a slab in the world.
2) The word "slab" doesn't get its meaning from referring to a slab in the world, but instead gets its meaning from being read in context within the other words used in the text. — RussellA

The word slab as used in the builder's language does not simply refer to the slab in the world, to a piece of stone. It functions as a command. It means "bring me a slab". The builder's language does not occur in a text, but rather in the context of the activity of building.

Does he believe that no word gets its meaning from referring to an object in the world ? — RussellA

He does not deny that some words refer to objects. What he rejects is that EVERY word functions in this way. The builder's language makes this point by showing that the names of objects is an incomplete picture of the language.

Oh, hell, you're not doing a Socrates on me, are you?! — Amity

No. I thought the chorus did not speak directly to the actors.

There is another difference. The laws are not a separate character or entity, but Socrates speaking on behalf of the laws.

Are you sure about that? — Amity

No. I plead ignorance. Perhaps you can persuade me.

I see that they are alike in so far as many voices sing as one, but my impression is that the chorus stands apart and is not a participant that speaks to the characters.

The example of the shopkeeper and the apples is in response to the picture of language as words naming objects.

In this picture of language we find the roots of the following idea: Every word has a meaning. This meaning is correlated with the word. It is the object for which the word stands.

(PI 1)

Red is not the name of an object, but names the color of the apples. Five tells him how many, and is not an object either. Apple names an object, but naming apples is not what this use of language is about.

What is the meaning of the slip of paper with the words "five red apples"? The object, the slip of paper, is not the meaning of the slip of paper. If the shopkeeper's apprentice hands him this slip of paper it might be an inventory list. If I found it I would not know what it means. I would not know what to do with in. Perhaps it is an IOU or some ingredients for a recipe.

The sentence "I want five apples" specifies how many apples I want, but the meaning of the sentence is under determined. What it means to the shopkeeper is not what it means when I express a wish.

I will observe Socrates is a character in Plato's plays. — Paine

The first thing that comes to mind in making that comparison is that unlike the works of the playwrights the dialogues do not contain a chorus.