There was some truth Heidegger was trying to communicate.

Heidegger was very influenced by B-time, and might have interpreted it in Kantian terms. (remember, Kant thought time was in our minds) Heidegger said for example that when we're crossing a bridge we are already on the other side. His idea were not poetry

Is this Heidegger or St. Teresa of Jesus levitating? — David Mo

I don't think you appreciate philosophy are it's deepest levels

Let me paraphrase that paragraph. "Existing in the world is being in the present, waiting for the future. To be authentically in the present is to resolutely anticipate, through which we see the future. Temporality and the present are the same, and it is a moment of vision. When the vision is timeless, it is in the ecstatic mood. Usually we are only a few seconds ahead of us. A broader vision is to see your whole destiny."

Lewis and Chesterton argue that it's impossible to reduce Christianity to a couple of beliefs and ethical rule. To try to do this in order to fight Islam is irrational. Let the Christians and secularists unite and fight side by side if there is an invasion..

Have you read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis or Heretics by G.K. Chesterton? Christianity is resistance to change. What you propose couldn't happen for another hundred years or so

It's what the universe resides in and from which it comes. You don't believe anything is discrete?

If Christians are to unite and try to force secularists to be nominal Christians, what are they going to do to people who think their particular Christianity alone saves and that it alone should be imposed by the State ( Feenyites, SSPX, SSPV, the Dimond brothers, etc etc)? Are they too to be put into rehabilitation camps?

The only thing that is completely discrete: nothingness

It seems to me that flux is tied to the continuous and the discrete is static

You keep saying that. You obviously want to be Christian but can't believe and your solution is to force others to be Christian

How can a "secular martyr" exist if secular people don't have a purpose to die for, a way of life to die for, values to die for, etc... Secular people only have their own subjectiveness, — Gus Lamarch

False in everyway. Believing in super-Daddy and his son Superman (jesus) may give some people meaning, but we find meaning in other ways

I'm not defending the concept of an ecumenical church, but of Christianity as a whole, with all its ramifications - being it catholic, orthodox or protestant -. — Gus Lamarch

This is a distinction without a difference. You seem to believe Christians should unite and force secularists to be Christian in order to defend the West. You don't even believe in the West in that case though!

If I have to, I would do it. We are not yet at the point of time where forceful conversion is being made by the state. - — Gus Lamarch

So secular martyr, bad. Christian martyr, good. Explain!

Whatever did God say about abortion? — tim wood

Nothing, but a universal Christianity is IMPOSSIBLE because they will be divided on that issue

"Don't murder." — tim wood

Let's get this straight. You guys are saying Pope Francis is strong to oppose the old teaching about burning heretics but weak in not opposing Islam. HOWEVER, what would the new Christianity, founded on the basic ideas that Jesus is Lord, say about abortion?

Why don't you become a Muslim to save you're own skin, hmm.

Secularism, ladies and gentlemen! Nihilism in its truest form... — Gus Lamarch

No, honesty

Premises

1) secularism is strong

2) Islam is not composed just of barbarians

3) i'd rather be killed by Muslims than say I'm either Christian or Islamic. I'll follow my conscience thank you

Sedevacantists are popping up too. Christianity unity is a illusion

Being+Nothing=Becoming is one example

Christianity unity is simply not going to happen since Islam is invading the West quietly, subtlety, and under the protection of liberalism. Pope Francis is a man of contradiction . He rejects Exsurge Dominae because he is liberal, and he wants to protect Islam because he is liberal. Being a conflicted person, he is not going to start trying to unite Christians under one banner against Islam. Ain't gonna happen

I've seen the YouTube video where it's claimed the formula of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is not in Hegel. But I've read it in Hegel! He simply uses more than three terms at times in his syllogisms

So it's being proposed the Christians unite under the sole ideas that Jesus was God and rose from the dead? Are they to ignore the questions of infant baptism, the Canon of Scripture, and every other doctrine in order to make "Mere Christianity" ( a derogatory term of C.S. Lewis is his book titled thusly). And what of Mormons and JWs who also claim to be Christian? Ecumenism has been a failure since the time it started in the 60's, and Pope Francis is not going to lead a group of minimalist Christians against Islam. He would tell them to become Catholic.

1) doesnt post modernism say that most language is inherently ambiguous?

2) Heidegger wrote "Modern Science, Metaphysics, and Mathematics" during an age when everyone was talking about relativity. I'm sure it's covered in the book. I see a lot of B-time in "Being and Time"

3) what would a conversation between Heisenberg and Heidegger have been like?? Energy was being discovered as the principle of everything, and the conclusion seemed to be that energy could create its own forces out of nothing. So much for a need for supernatural intervention! Heidegger must have found this interesting

For clarify: dialectics originally meant bringing far apart ideas together thru discursive reasoning. After Hegel, dialectic meant bring contradictions into a unity of synthesis. With Hegel you have thesis, antithesis, and conclusion as synthesis. Sometimes Hegel had four or more terms in a syllogism of this kind

All the quotes are from the middle of the book when he starts talking about conscience and death; I simply wrote them down on my computer awhile ago so I could use them on this for this forum . You are supremely correct that I should've page numbers attached. I picked the book up today for the first time in months.

I thought death as a "possibility of being" meant we could find some kind of being in death. It's clear that language works such that the equivocal is predominate

You've accused non-Christian westerners of sinning by not becoming Christian awhile being an atheist yourself. Each person has to make up their own mind on how to save the West. Bye!

No, because "inauthentic/authentic time" is meaningless. — Xtrix

For Heidegger it's meaningingless? He says "the facticity of Being is essentially distinguished from the factuality of something objectively present. Existing Being does not encounter itself as something objectively present within the world." This might be a starting point to seeing a difference in time-structure.

"The problem of possible wholeness of the being, who we ourselves actually are, exists justifiably IF care, as the fundamental constitution of Being, 'is connected' with DEATH as the most extreme possibility OF this Being."

So there is possibility of Being in death. Heidegger doesn't say we then go from Being to infinite nothingness. He doesn't speak of ETERNAL life at all. But Being does not leave us in death

"..death is the ownmost nonrelational, certain, and, as such, indefinite and not to be bypssed possibility OF Being".

All these quotes are from B&T

It's just a material object. How it is understood is How is used, depending on culture

Heidegger specifically spoke of relativity. Being Kantian, time does not have parts. SO would inauthentic time be Newton's and authentic be Kant's? I suppose. Heidegger says in B&T that death is a possibility FOR being. I guess this implies an afterlife where we experience time truly instead.of in an illusion. Any comments?

I'm not going to pretend to be Jesus's spouse to please you

You don't believe in God but you think the most important man in the world is Pope Francis?

Just clarifying

On exurge dominae: read the 33rd proposition that is condemned. If you are for a religion that officially sanctions one of the worst forms of torture -capital punishment in the name of knowing "truth", well I have no more to say to you then. Christianity is as brutal as Islam. The Jews "of the Lord" in the OT killed children

And here you are, questioning this very belief you believe to not be truhful. So go then and convert to Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, it doesn't matter what religion you'll follow. This secularism will too happen to it sometime in the future. History proves it. — Gus Lamarch

No I only realize that none of those religions are provable, so I believe whatever I want to believe (in the sense of "belief"). I don't contradict truth

in 1891 Pope Leo XIII published the encyclical Rerum novarum, which set in context Catholic social teaching in terms that rejected socialism but advocated the regulation of working conditions. Rerum Novarum argued for the establishment of a living wage and the right of workers to form trade unions." — Gus Lamarch

What about Leo X's decree against Luther? Are we to burn heretics to death like it suggests?

Is this referring to passages in Kant? — Kevin

Kant believed that the only speculative absolute was moral rules (citation needed). I don't believe moral rules are objective though. I think karma alone is absolute, each person having to learn their own conscience and how it works on their own

Kant was a phenomenologist?

Unless, therefore, we are to move constantly in a circle, the word appearance must be recognized as already indicating a relation to something, the immediate representation of which is, indeed, sensible, but which, even apart from the constitution of our sensibility (upon which the form of our intuition is grounded), must be something in itself, that is, an object independent of sensibility. There thus
results the concept of a noumenon.It is not of anything, but signifies only the thought of something in general, in which I abstract from everything that belongs to the form of sensible intuition." Kant

Phenomena IS noumena.

Well I'm sorry if I did anything wrong. I have a very religious side and a very secular side. Jungian psychology might say my Ego is somewhere in the middle

You've been very defensive on this thread. My sole point in the post earlier is that modern people are accused of being overly rationalistic, when in reality religious people try to rationalize every thing too, the I Ching being a perfect example. (I only consider it a religious text because it seems plagued with apophenia)

I don't discourage you from reading those books though. If there is something to it, maybe you'll be the one to figure it out

Wikipedia says the I Ching is an "inspiration to the worlds of religion, philosphy," ... It also says right at the start that it is partially a cosmological text! Therefore it should be studied with the scientific method, which people on this thread have tried to do