Heidegger

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Postby SilentSoliloquy » Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:04 pm

This is where I feel the urge to slap you upside the head, Saully.

Language is used to represent a place value, right? Value of our thoughts, right?

So is the number 0 but don't go saying it's not a number because it represents nothing because it is a number just as nothing is the value of something.
User avatar
SilentSoliloquy
Thinker
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Tampa, FL

Postby Faust » Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:18 pm

I'll flesh out a couple of points. I don't usually quote, but it might be useful here.

"An understanding of Being is always already contained in everything we apprehend in beings".

I respond to statements like this with "Okay. 'Nuff said, then."

Now, he soon says "If one says accordingly that "Being" is the most universal concept, that cannot mean that it is the clearest and that it needs no further discussion".

Wrong.

"The concept of "Being" is undefinable".

Correct.

So we can't sensibly talk about it.

"The undefinability of being does not dispense with the question of its meaning but compels that question".

He is, of course, anticipating objections by the time he writes Being and Time.

"Being is the self-evident concept."

Correct.

Of course, B & T is all about refuting these ideas. He also produces some tellingly thorough apologetics for the fact that he spends virtually his entire career on the question of Being.

I would simply like for someone to tell me the answer he has found. I believe that he does wind up with a method, but it is a method for a method. We must interpret the world by interpreting it. And this interpretaion, or interpreting, has as its object not the transcendence of one sphere to another, but of transcendence itself.

What the fuck does that mean?

Universalism is always nonsensical as a philosphical basis. He doesn't escape Aristotle or Hegel, even as he flees.

I'm still open to anyone who wishes to answer, or otherwise dispense with my questions.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:29 pm

SilentSoliloquy wrote:You must be to do.

So your cogito ergo sum is "I do, therefore I am", right? But what do you mean by "do"?
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby SilentSoliloquy » Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:36 pm

I'll put it this way since it seems as though I've stumbled upon an equal place value, 0.

When we use the word "nothing" we are using the number 0. Nothing has a place and 0 has a place. 0 is used to form mathematical equations and nothing is used to form sentences. To form a sentence with the word "nothing" you must be giving nothing a place value or else it cannot be in a sentence. To use the number 0 you must be giving it a place value or else it cannot be in a mathematical equation. This value is its being. Its place. If it does not have a place it just can't be. See?

Nothing can be a confusing word to represent the absence of something as a value but it is a value, it is a place, and it is a being.
User avatar
SilentSoliloquy
Thinker
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Tampa, FL

Postby Faust » Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:48 pm

SS - that is, in part, Heidegger's thesis, all right. But "nothing" can also be used as "nullset" or "empty set" in regular language. This is one way of stating Heidegger. An empty set is not strictly "nothing" The set itself exists. This is not a problem in mathematics, but Heidegger confuses the set (which exists) with its contents (which do not). Even where he doesn't, any formulation that concludes a null set is always trivial.

I cannot escape that we have the choice between calling his thesis either nonsensical or trivial.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Postby SilentSoliloquy » Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:53 pm

Well, here's what he's doing. He's saying that there can be a mathematical equation using 0...without 0. That there can be a sentence using the word nothing...without the word nothing.

Bogus. There can't. 0 and nothing hold it together. They are the beings that make it.

It's trivial 'cause it ain't true. It's logically inept.
User avatar
SilentSoliloquy
Thinker
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Tampa, FL

Postby Faust » Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:56 pm

Yeah SS. It's one or the other. I am trying to give a charitable reading its due. But basically I agree. Even the most charitable reading I can find doesn't seem to help his case.

And stop being so bright, dudette. It's annoying.

Well, not really.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:14 pm

If I say "That glass is not empty", then what I'm really saying is: "That glass, empty, is not" - "That empty glass is not."

A, to B, pointing at a full glass: "That empty glass does not exist."
B, confused: "What empty glass!"
A, smugly: "See?"
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby SilentSoliloquy » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:25 pm

Yes, it's being used with a place value, therefore, it exists. Be it 0 or nothing, it exists for crying out loud.

It doesn't lose its symbolic place for being metaphorical. You made a "non-existent" glass with your mind, the non-existent glass is the object you made, so it can't be non-existent even if only existing under ideal terms because "non-existence" also has place value.
User avatar
SilentSoliloquy
Thinker
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Tampa, FL

Postby Faust » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:32 pm

Sauwelios - There is a difference between particulars and universals.

A separate point - "That empty glass does not exist" is nonsense. Because of the word "that".

To avoid full notation, "That glass is not empty" = ~(empty glass). The glass exists, here.

"That empty glass does not exist" is not a statement at all; it's giggerish.

It is not "~(empty) glass", nor is it "~(empty glass)" nor is it "~glass" (in any state).

An empty set can be that empty set. But its contents can't be that nothing. It's that nothing that is in question in Heidegger. But that is gibberish, also.

I am not sure what point you are making.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:36 pm

SilentSoliloquy wrote:Yes, it's being used with a place value, therefore, it exists. Be it 0 or nothing, it exists for crying out loud.

It doesn't lose its symbolic place for being metaphorical. You made a "non-existent" glass with your mind, the non-existent glass is the object you made, so it can't be non-existent even if only existing under ideal terms because "non-existence" also has place value.

So the empty glass and the full glass are equally real, eh?
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby SilentSoliloquy » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:37 pm

They share an equal value. :wink:
User avatar
SilentSoliloquy
Thinker
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Tampa, FL

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:49 pm

faust wrote:Sauwelios - There is a difference between particulars and universals.

Why are you telling me this? What are you referring to?


faust wrote:A separate point - "That empty glass does not exist" is nonsense. Because of the word "that".

To avoid full notation, "That glass is not empty" = ~(empty glass). The glass exists, here.

"That empty glass does not exist" is not a statement at all; it's giggerish.

It is not "~(empty) glass", nor is it "~(empty glass)" nor is it "~glass" (in any state).

An empty set can be that empty set. But its contents can't be that nothing. It's that nothing that is in question in Heidegger. But that is gibberish, also.

I am not sure what point you are making.

What does "~" mean?

It seems that you are approaching the problem from a mathematical, I from a linguistic perspective.

I think there is a difference between absolute nothing and relative nothing. Relative nothing does have a place value. Absolute nothing does not. It is the absence of everything (including all places).
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:51 pm

SilentSoliloquy wrote:They share an equal value. :wink:

You said: "You made a "non-existent" glass with your mind". How do you know you didn't make your monitor with your mind?
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby SilentSoliloquy » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:51 pm

There can't be absence of all places because even our thoughts have places. Even our thoughts come from somewhere. Nothing=0. They still have places. Even when you say nothing it must have a place and being to be nothing.
User avatar
SilentSoliloquy
Thinker
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Tampa, FL

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:57 pm

SilentSoliloquy wrote:There can't be absence of all places because even our thoughts have places. Even our thoughts come from somewhere. Nothing=0. They still have places. Even when you say nothing it must have a place and being to be nothing.

Precisely! There can't be absence from all places! Therefore, absolute nothing doesn't exist! But that is precisely the definition of absolute nothing...
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby SilentSoliloquy » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:02 pm

If you do so much as say it, it has a place. There cannot be anything that does not exist. "absolute nothing" has just been said, given a place.
Last edited by SilentSoliloquy on Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
SilentSoliloquy
Thinker
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Tampa, FL

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:02 pm

So: absolute nothing does not exists, because there exists something (indeed, everything - by definition). We disagree, however, as to what this something is. Or rather, we do not know everything that exists, or perhaps we do, but then we do not know that we do; I, however, ask: what do we know, what are we absolutely certain of that exists? -
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby SilentSoliloquy » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:04 pm

Your words exist. That's all you're basing it off of. That's how you know.
User avatar
SilentSoliloquy
Thinker
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Tampa, FL

Postby detrop » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:08 pm

"Absolute nothing" has just been said, given a place.


This is similiar to Sartre. He says that "nothing" can be concieved when, for example, you "walk into a room and realize Pierre's absence." The fact that he is not there is paradoxically becomming an object of consciousness and is at the level of awareness and contemplation, since reflecting on this fact while it happens is the rule in progress.

So here a non-existent is real as an object of thought. You "notice" a negative.
detrop
"ist" wannabe
 
Posts: 5063
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:08 pm

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:10 pm

SilentSoliloquy wrote:If you do so much as say it, it has a place. There cannot be anything that does not exist. "absolute nothing" has just been said, given a place.

There is nothing that does not exist. <=> Nothing does not exist.

Nothing is by definition not a thing. <=> A thing that is not a thing is not.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:12 pm

SilentSoliloquy wrote:Your words exist. That's all you're basing it off of. That's how you know.

What if those words are creations of my mind, SilentSoliloquy?
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby SilentSoliloquy » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:17 pm

Saully, you're confusing yourself unnecessarily.

Though nothing may represent an absence of being it does not make it itself as a place value non-existent.

Words are a creation of your mind.
User avatar
SilentSoliloquy
Thinker
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Tampa, FL

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:19 pm

détrop wrote:
"Absolute nothing" has just been said, given a place.


This is similiar to Sartre. He says that "nothing" can be concieved when, for example, you "walk into a room and realize Pierre's absence." The fact that he is not there is paradoxically becomming an object of consciousness and is at the level of awareness and contemplation, since reflecting on this fact while it happens is the rule in progress.

So here a non-existent is real as an object of thought. You "notice" a negative.

That is relative nothing. Absolute nothing would be the absence of everything including the place SilentSoliloquy has just given to the phrase "absolute nothing".
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby SilentSoliloquy » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:23 pm

Sauwelios wrote:That is relative nothing. Absolute nothing would be the absence of everything including the place SilentSoliloquy has just given to the phrase "absolute nothing".

Your words exist. They represent something. You are trying to say that you don't exist when clearly the very thought of non-existence...exists!
User avatar
SilentSoliloquy
Thinker
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Tampa, FL

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]