Udostepnij
Staly link:
Kod:
zarakhast mowi:
Dec 25, 2010 - Yes we have all been reduced to the status of economic units. This is why I hate politicians ! But if you think that physics is the answer then you are way off track. The most capable thinkers these days are scientists and not philosophers - but this is a disaster ! There is too much cleverness around today and not enough depth. By the way, in regard to this video, Heidegger never says ANYTHING about the prevalence of alienation in the "big city".
zarakhast mowi:
Dec 25, 2010 - It is just as likely that alienation will occur in rural areas as it is that will occur in the city. That is a load of rubbish and yet another attempt to make Heidegger's thought look like something that it isn't. Alienation is almost universal. In fact we can say that it IS universal. It stems from metaphysics. But the word "metaphysics" is ambiguous. There is nothing straightforward in philosophy.
zarakhast mowi:
Dec 26, 2010 - "Metaphysics" is profoundly ambiguous. Heidegger is responsible for this ambiguity. Scientists can stop dreaming about glory : you are very inadequate thinkers. You don't even understand your own foundations. But science is what metaphysics BECAME and since we have not yet escaped metaphysics, science will rule the world for a long time yet. Except for certain individuals, whose influence will be almost imperceptible.
zarakhast mowi:
Dec 27, 2010 - It's really is so much simpler - yet more profound - than so many people seem to think. The meta-physical transcends the physical and the physical (from the Greek "physis") names, quite simply, the totality of beings (i.e. what science would call "the universe"). For sure, the original Greek meaning of physis is more profound, but "the universe" suffices for the purpose of illustrating the contrast between science (physics) and philosophy (metaphysics).
zarakhast mowi:
Dec 27, 2010 - So, what is meta-physical ? The answer is immediately clear and obvious : nothing. Only when we ask the question which Heidegger rightly identifies as the fundamental question of philosophy can there be any chance of divining the essential difference between physics and metaphysics. But of course "nothing" does not present itself to either the mind or the senses. Perhaps, then, it lies prior to both, making them possible ?
zarakhast mowi:
Dec 27, 2010 - It is a thoughtless mantra today that any suggestion that "mere feeling" is more fundamental than so-called "thought" is tantamount to insanity, delusion, "irrationalism" or a "poetic adornment" to good, solid "objective" ("scientific") thought. Heidegger contends the opposite : feeling lies prior to and guides thought. But he takes care to avoid the arbitrariness of mere irrationalism and identifies a fundamental feeling (mood) : dread (Angst). He says, "Dread reveals Nothing".
zarakhast mowi:
Dec 27, 2010 - Every genuine philosophic insight is impossible to "demonstrate". Or rather, it is possible to demonstrate it only to those who already know it. Philosophy is unteachable, as Plato himself said over two millennia ago. In the moment of discovery, "publicity" dies. Only in solitude is there philosophy. Science understands only the drive to establish an "objective" viewpoint. But if the world is fundamentally not an object then that drive is misguided from the outset.
zarakhast mowi:
Dec 27, 2010 - If, as Heidegger claims in What Is Metaphysics ?, every being (insofar as it is a being) is made out of Nothing, then the notion of the world as an object crumbles - together with the scientific viewpoint. But science is merely what philosophy became. The roots of the degeneration of philosophy (metaphysics) into science lie in philosophy itself.
zarakhast mowi:
Dec 27, 2010 - If "there is" a God then God will surely always appear as "Nothing" to the intellect. This has been acknowledged by philosophers since the beginning. The a priori, making thinking itself possible, eludes thinking. "The whole is more than the sum of the parts" means : the whole precedes the parts and cannot be reached by adding the parts together. Everything "exists" as a whole already, prior to any "thing". And so we must ask about the whole. This is clearly not a possibility for science.
zarakhast mowi:
Dec 27, 2010 - If thinking is to think the thought of Being then it must transcend even thought, since thought is not purely nothing. Nothing is nothing - and nothing else. The question which addresses Nothing goes beyond all things - i.e. is meta-physical. ONLY this question is metaphysical. But if to enter into metaphysics is (via thought) to go beyond thought, then it must culminate in something other than thought. "Dread reveals Nothing".
zarakhast mowi:
Dec 27, 2010 - Metaphysics is based in a certain experience of Being, not merely in intellectual training. Formal logic is not everything - in truth it is worthless once it has become detached from genuine ontology. The rules on the basis of which formal logic is practised are themselves based on a particular metaphysics, namely Plato's. But if this ontological view does not hold good, then neither does formal logic.
zarakhast mowi:
Dec 28, 2010 - The experience of ONE question alone is the key to philosophy : the question which asks why anything is being at all rather than nothing. This is the only important question and the only question which can truly evoke WONDER. If you fall short of this question then you may be a clever so-and-so but you are certainly not a philosopher and certainly not destined for knowledge. All "other" mysteries pale in comparison. In truth there are no other mysteries.
zarakhast mowi:
Dec 28, 2010 - ALL questions are contained within this question. There is not a single question you can think of which does not boil down to this one fundamental question. It is the question which places even itself in question, since questioning itself is something and not nothing. ALL so-called "science" owes its very lifeblood to the very fact that this question was once asked and still can be asked. Genuine questioning questions ITSELF too and is not merely "objective", i.e. "scientific".
zarakhast mowi:
Dec 28, 2010 - "Objectivity" : the most overrated, vague concept of all time ! Objectivity is in every case objective only for a subject - and hence never really objective to begin with, because it is still dependent on the subject. The only way objectivity could be purely and independently achieved would be by destroying the subject - but in doing so the object would also be destroyed because there wouldn't be anything for it to be an object for !
zarakhast mowi:
Dec 28, 2010 - It is the seemingly impossible ABSOLUTE point of view from which philosophy takes place. This is what will always baffle ordinary thinking - and science is ordinary thinking decked out in fine colours, masquerading as wisdom. It never for one moment questions the objectivity of the object, nor does it bother to ask how subject and object relate to each other, let alone ON WHAT BASIS - which is really the important question. The a priori is for it something unworthy of thought.
CrimsonToast mowi:
Feb 28, 2011 - @UrcoolDNTchng Has there ever been a thought not created by language?
merral1 mowi:
May 2, 2011 - wtf I dont give a fuck about this guys life story. I have to do homework and just want to know his philosophical views. Fuck
doctord185 mowi:
May 23, 2011 - lmao!
chasbo2chasbo2 mowi:
Jun 20, 2011 - "Has there ever been a thought not created by language?" Do you think when you play chess? Or the saxophone?
QuasarKnight mowi:
Jun 28, 2011 - Slip of the tongue 6:29 !
jazzaste123 mowi:
Aug 16, 2011 - Wars why ohhh why ohhh why I hate wars so
TheDavid2222 mowi:
Jan 23, 2012 - watch flame0430's video on Heidegger if you want his views.
zarakhast mowi:
Dec 24, 2010 - It is very strange to come across a person who does not wonder why (or how) she or he came to be and why (and how) he (or she) is absolutely bound to die, having once come into being. Very strange but all too common. Is modern philosophy a bit like modern politics ? Is it all just "economics" ? Are we all just nihilists really ? Do we already "know" everything ? Have we really understood Nietzsche ? Might we have misinterpreted his thoughts ? Are we capable of self-criticism ? (???)