zarakhast mowi:

Jan 7, 2011 - Why is Heidegger's thought "tragic" ? He tells us the answer to this in his lectures on Nietzsche but it pervades his thought in all of his works. What, or for whom, is tragedy a tragedy ? The answer (given in the lectures) is ambiguous : it is the "tragedy of beings". Does this mean that beings themselves are tragic from the point of view of Being ? Does Being suffer beings ? Or is Being a tragedy for (from the point of view of) beings ? What suffers here and why ? What causes the suffering ?

zarakhast mowi:

Jan 7, 2011 - Philosophy has to do with eternity. There are no "temporal / temporary" tragedies for philosophy. Tragedy is not something which can be altered or rectified but is necessary and ineluctable. Philosophy, as Plato (Socrates) always maintained, is about death and the eternal.

zarakhast mowi:

Jan 7, 2011 - According to Nietzsche (in Heidegger's interpretation) the tragedy is not eternity (Being) but transiency (Becoming). So what SUFFERS in the tragic view of Heidegger / Nietzsche is eternity (i.e. Being) and not the being, i.e. the individual. The tragedy is not "ours" but eternity's. Moreover, WE, as transients in eternity, CAUSE such suffering - simply by "intruding" into eternity.

zarakhast mowi:

Jan 7, 2011 - But what "causes" transiency (beings) if not permanence (Being, eternity) ? The "blame" obviously lies with eternity then ? This is true, but the thinker, knowing himself to be inevitably bound up with - and in a sense identical with - eternity, takes this "blame" upon himself. In other words, he annihilates the difference and takes responsibility. This thought is repulsive to the "individual" (i.e. to the "ego").

zarakhast mowi:

Jan 7, 2011 - But what can all this talk of tragedy mean to someone who has not yet experienced himself as eternal ? This is where the fundamental question of metaphysics ("Why is there not nothing ?") reasserts its importance. What Heidegger says about the "nihilation of Nothing" in this essay is not something to be ignored or discounted or mocked. Actually this phrase contains the greatest insight ever achieved. The connection between this thought and the experience of "dread" is not merely incidental.

JCotton648 mowi:

Jan 31, 2011 - I'm reading a comment here that says it does not matter at all that this expert in ethics was a nazi. ethics = nazism? "Ethics" means the "right way to behave, think, etc." If an expert in a particular topic is not fully a master of that topic, I think it is a noteworthy fact.

Contextcatcher mowi:

Mar 19, 2011 - "...being in our world means being different..." * I read "Being and Time". It intrigued me but it also irritated me: he made a prison of language and it takes a lot of effort to overcome his dense style. He saw himself as The Philosopher who knew the core of life. But out of his private study and his academic kingdom he was blind for power like many 'fellow travellers' before and after him. Only great novels can show us these problem, like Canetti's "Auto da Fe' * in german: "Die Blendung".

Contextcatcher mowi:

Mar 19, 2011 - eh.. different?....show us THIS problem...

DerrenBrown100 mowi:

Mar 28, 2011 - "Why are there beings at all, instead of Nothing?" Heidegger. What an ignorant quote.

Contextcatcher mowi:

Mar 30, 2011 - "being in our world means being diferent". This was my own bad translation. The official translation by C W Wedgwood of Canetti's novel is: "since to be in our world means to be different" page 402 Ironical: a translation isn't a precise copy of the original it always differ. Word metamorphosis is crucial in Canetti's piece de resistance "Masse und Macht" (Crowds and Power). Title is striking short as "Sein und Zeit". But dense of associated ideas his style is startling clear...

southernCal909 mowi:

May 5, 2011 - @zarakhast...You are very wrong my friend. If the previous night wasnt lingering so strong, I would explain.

southernCal909 mowi:

May 5, 2011 - @DerrenBrown100...No not truly. Look at the simple presentation of our universe. We "Matter," this includes everything in your presence, is only .04%.....Dark Energy takes up 74% of our universe.

zarakhast mowi:

May 5, 2011 - Make sure you do try to explain then, when the previous night (alcohol ?) is no longer lingering. If you disagree and are right but fail to get your point across then that would be no disgrace. If you are wrong but you truly believe what you say then that would be no disgrace either. Philosophy is not a "communal affair" though, I stand by that. Nor does it EVER stoop to using propaganda. It is a solitary journey, almost inevitably at odds with the "contemporary".

zarakhast mowi:

May 5, 2011 - God, there are some dense people who choose to involve themselves in philosophy - and I include both "ordinary" people and philosophy students and lecturers and professors. "Ethics" is very far from being the whole of philosophy. Philosophy in the first place DECIDES ethics, i.e. what is "right" and "wrong". It does so on the basis of more fundamental principles, i.e. meta-physical principles. Anyone who can't understand this (including scientists) is a bit of a moron.

TheDavid2222 mowi:

May 10, 2011 - I found their Nietszche documentary to be dissapointing as well. After reading much of Nietszche's work the documentary didn't serve him justice. I recommend to everyone that you actually read the works of the philosophers and try not to get "the gist" through a documentary. Trust me, it's worth it.

zarakhast mowi:

May 12, 2011 - Thinly veiled mockery. You misspelled "dissapointing" as well. A typically juvenile attempt. I thought wumming was going out of fashion ? Apparently not. You read the original thinker rather than any books "about" them - with the odd exception - because otherwise you place yourself in the hands of someone else's interpretation. Human beings are notorious for distorting the truth to suit their own ends - especially when it comes to interpreting philosophy.

TheDavid2222 mowi:

May 12, 2011 - I do not give much attention to spelling when I comment on a youtube page. You should consider not taking such trivial things so seriously.

zarakhast mowi:

May 12, 2011 - I agree. Apologies. There are, however, some wums who have by now got it down to a fine art. I LOVE taking them on, infantile though that may be of me. Unfortunately I was just paranoid in your case. If I think of any worthwhile thoughts in relation to your question about aesthetic relativism I'll post them.

TheDavid2222 mowi:

May 13, 2011 - I am also very argumentattive on Youtube. I once argued with a girl on youtube that Mozart had more value than Britney Spears. I gave her a very good argument to counter but all she did was get mad at me. It was really just an experiment to see if it was possible to change a simpletons mind. I was very dissapointed. I would recommend not wasting energy on these people because they are not open to inquiry. I buy into Plato's theory of 3 kinds of people.

zarakhast mowi:

May 13, 2011 - Plato's philosophy is forever sacred. What I don't like about Plato's statements in The Republic (about the rulers, the auxiliaries and the rest) is that it has provided rulers ever since then with an authoritative justification to LIE to people ("the rulers alone have the right to lie"). This would be all very well if the rulers themselves were honest and benevolent people but usually nowadays they are not. I'll leave the question of music alone until I've really thought about it.

TheDavid2222 mowi:

May 13, 2011 - okay sounds good, thanks!

Contextcatcher mowi:

Jun 1, 2011 - "In setting forth everyday being-towards-death, we must take our orientation from those structures of everydayness at which we have earlier arrived. In Being-towards-death, Dasein comports itself towards itself as a distinctive potentiality-for-Being. But the Self of everydayness is the "they. The "they' is constituted by the way things have been publicly interpreted, which expresses itself in idle talk". (Being and Time part 51) . Meta-Physical-Being-Is-Ethical-Towards-Meaningless...

zarakhast mowi:

Jul 9, 2011 - @Contextcatc The ultimate and only being-towards is the being-towards-death (since this is inevitable). This (death) is what love must always fight against, what it always finds itself in conflict with. How can one love what one is bound (by necessity) to lose ? Love, it seems, is the loser already. In fact it seems pointless, even something invented. What is the point in loving anything, whether it be a person or an abstraction or a deity or oneself or whatever, if love has to be annihilated ?

zarakhast mowi:

Jul 9, 2011 - The "end" of philosophy : "end" has multiple senses here. "Overcoming" (as in the "overcoming of metaphysics") also does not mean what most people think it does. But yes, philosophy after Nietzsche is "ended" in a terminal sense. Why ? Because it has arrived at its final and insuperable conclusion : the thought of eternal return. But it has still not arrived at the truth, not because the content of the thought "eternal return" is "incorrect" but because correctness is UNTRUE.

Matthysable mowi:

Apr 16, 2012 - As usual, "anti-Semitism" has nothing to do with Jewish behaviour. How tedious!