Determinism

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

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:07 pm

Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.


In order to understand determinism in Hume's account, one needs to bear in mind Hume's empiricism, which underlies all his philosophical inquiry. As an empiricist, Hume believed that our knowledge of the world comes only through sensory perception, not through innate ideas or intuition.


He was still no less stuck here [like all the rest of us are today] in acknowledging that he was unable to determine definitively if the distinction he made between empiricism and rationalism was only as nature compelled him to make it...or, of his own volition, he freely opted for one conclusion rather than another.

Unless, of course, he did provide us with a definitive assessment of determinism. One that has yet to come to my attention.

Can anyone here provide me with it...assuming that it does exist.

Based on this premise, he believed there are certain principles that help us acquire knowledge or know anything at all, for that matter. One of these principles concerns causation. As we go through life Hume argued, we constantly witness conjunctions of events: we see one thing following another on a regular basis. Based on this constant conjunction, we infer that there is a cause and effect relationship between them.


Here of course the discussion almost always revolves solely around interactions in the either/or world:

So we see one billiard ball hit another billiard ball, and the second ball then moves, and we infer a causal relationship.


Whereas far more fascinating is the speculation aimed at grappling with determinism in the is/ought world. The part where the is/ought world itself is only an illusion. The part where human moral and political conflict is basically the equivalent of those billiard balls interacting: only as we must given an all-encompassing ontological cause and effect applicable to all matter.


Such observations in turn lead us to a belief in causal necessity, a universal principle that every effect must be caused. Thus we assume that for an effect to exist, it is necessary that there must be a cause, and nothing comes out of randomness or chance: “The chance or indifference lies only in our judgment on account of our imperfect knowledge, not in the things themselves, which are in every case equally necessary, though to appearance not equally constant or certain,” Hume writes. From Hume’s rejection of the idea of chance being ‘in things themselves’, we can conclude that he was a determinist.


Okay, but, "for all practical purposes" how far did his own understanding of that go? That is basically what I keep attempting to inquire about with obsrvr524 above, in regard to James S. Saint's take on determinism.

And, compelled or not, he refuses to go there. In fact in order to avoid going there I was able to reduce him down to the "wiggle wiggle wiggle" gibberish of this sort here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 3&start=50

What is it about the implication of hard determinism that disturbs some more than others? For those like obsrvr524, they seem to accept determinism...except when it comes to their fulminating fanatic rants against the liberals. Then they are right and the liberals are wrong...as though determinism has nothing to do with it. Same with peacegirl and her no free will/greater satisfaction contradiction.

Or, rather, still a contradiction to me.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Sculptor » Fri Jun 04, 2021 11:07 pm

iambiguous wrote:Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.


In order to understand determinism in Hume's account, one needs to bear in mind Hume's empiricism, which underlies all his philosophical inquiry. As an empiricist, Hume believed that our knowledge of the world comes only through sensory perception, not through innate ideas or intuition.


He was still no less stuck here [like all the rest of us are today] in acknowledging that he was unable to determine definitively if the distinction he made between empiricism and rationalism was only as nature compelled him to make it...or, of his own volition, he freely opted for one conclusion rather than another.

WHere does he say that?
The dichotomy between empiricism and rationalism characterised in the history of the period is often characterised between a parallel distinctions between Britsh and French philosophy of the time. When you scratch the surface the distinctions don't hold water. It is fashionable; something fo historians to obsess over. Hume go on well with the philosophes. As he travelled widely through Europe.

Unless, of course, he did provide us with a definitive assessment of determinism. One that has yet to come to my attention.

Can anyone here provide me with it...assuming that it does exist.

Enquiry concerning Human Nature.
You will not find the words "compatibilism", or "determinism". The Language of the time spoke of liberty and necessity. which is in Section 8 If i remember correctly.

But long before that Hume first great work written when he was just 29 also contains a more verbose account.
A Treatise of Human Nature
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 857
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jun 05, 2021 8:02 pm

iambiguous wrote: Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.


In order to understand determinism in Hume's account, one needs to bear in mind Hume's empiricism, which underlies all his philosophical inquiry. As an empiricist, Hume believed that our knowledge of the world comes only through sensory perception, not through innate ideas or intuition.


He was still no less stuck here [like all the rest of us are today] in acknowledging that he was unable to determine definitively if the distinction he made between empiricism and rationalism was only as nature compelled him to make it...or, of his own volition, he freely opted for one conclusion rather than another.


Sculptor wrote: WHere does he say that? The dichotomy between empiricism and rationalism characterised in the history of the period is often characterised between a parallel distinctions between Britsh and French philosophy of the time. When you scratch the surface the distinctions don't hold water. It is fashionable; something fo historians to obsess over. Hume go on well with the philosophes. As he travelled widely through Europe.


That's not really my point though.

Again, as with what James S. Saint says about determinism above, the real conundrum [as I understand it] revolves more around our seeming inability to pin down beyond all doubt whether what, in fact, any of us say about rationalism/empiricism is or is not only what nature compels us to say. In other words, given the assumption that the human brain is but more matter inherently in sync with the laws of matter.

Thus the distinction you note above is but one more necessary manifestation of that.

What Hume said could have been anything at all. It is that he could not have freely opted to say something else that matters most to me. Which is why, it seems, obsrvr524 avoids responding to this same point. As I understand him, he wants to accept determinism. But he wants to insist that his reactionary political rants here are more rational than those who oppose them. But he won't delve into this with me.

Which, from my frame of mind, takes us back to peacegirl's no free will/greater satisfaction rendition of determinism.

Sure, given free will, I am more than willing to acknowledge that the problem here is me: they are right but I am not able to grasp why.

Perhaps you might take a stab at it.

Unless, of course, he did provide us with a definitive assessment of determinism. One that has yet to come to my attention.

Can anyone here provide me with it...assuming that it does exist.


Sculptor wrote: Enquiry concerning Human Nature.
You will not find the words "compatibilism", or "determinism". The Language of the time spoke of liberty and necessity. which is in Section 8 If i remember correctly.

But long before that Hume first great work written when he was just 29 also contains a more verbose account.
A Treatise of Human Nature


Again, this entirely misses my point. You merely assume here that this "great work" is great because Hume had the option to come up with other, considerably less great conclusions but he opted instead for the more brilliant ones.

And, yes, that may well have been the case. But that is not how "here and now" I understand determinism.

And I suspect that those like obsrvr524 are reluctant to explore the implications of hard determinism as I do because they want their cake here and to eat it too. They want determinism but they also want others to admit that they win all the arguments.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jun 05, 2021 8:07 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Iambiguous: Sigh...

Back to all of the many, many excerpts she has provided me on this thread. And, one would assume, given the real deal free will world, that these excerpts chosen would reflect what she deems to be the authors most potent points.

Peacegirl: No Iambiguous. It is not even close. They wouldn’t even be considered good cliff notes.

Iambiguous: And then the part where she pretends that those who have read the book from cover to cover and still refuse to agree with the author have really read it at all.

Peacegirl: Who are these people you are referring to?

Iambiguous: In my view, she simply has far too much invested intellectually, emotionally and psychologically in anchoring here own "true self" to the author's objectivist TOE.

Peacegirl: You are a typical skeptic and have done what the author urged people not to do: jump to conclusions. I’m not invested in you so it’s okay.

Iambiguous: But then the part where it all gets hopelessly surreal. The part where I explain how, given my own understanding of determinism, this entire exchange itself is inherently/necessarily only as it ever could have been.

As though I could actually possibly know this!!!

Peacegirl: You’re right, it is, which is why I want to engage with others who might, out of necessity, have a different kind of exchange.


There is really nothing at all here that we haven't fruitlessly pursued over and over and over again.

It would appear that, as with God, Nature also works in mysterious ways.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Sculptor » Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:08 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Sculptor wrote: WHere does he say that? The dichotomy between empiricism and rationalism characterised in the history of the period is often characterised between a parallel distinctions between Britsh and French philosophy of the time. When you scratch the surface the distinctions don't hold water. It is fashionable; something fo historians to obsess over. Hume go on well with the philosophes. As he travelled widely through Europe.


That's not really my point though.

I do not think you have a point. You simply said you were ignorant of the location of Hume's arguements on Determinism. I furnished you with them.


Again, as with what James S. Saint says about determinism above, the real conundrum [as I understand it] revolves more around our seeming inability to pin down beyond all doubt whether what, in fact, any of us say about rationalism/empiricism is or is not only what nature compels us to say. In other words, given the assumption that the human brain is but more matter inherently in sync with the laws of matter.

I suggest you read him before you criticise him, since you seem to have no idea what he is talking about.

Thus the distinction you note above is but one more necessary manifestation of that.

Rubbish. You started the emptricist/rationalist distinction not me. It does not hold water.

What Hume said could have been anything at all. It is that he could not have freely opted to say something else that matters most to me.

Hume was determined to lay out his thoughts on the matter.
Which he formally did twice several years apart. The second time in Enquiries, was more clearly written.
Which is why, it seems, obsrvr524 avoids responding to this same point. As I understand him, he wants to accept determinism. But he wants to insist that his reactionary political rants here are more rational than those who oppose them. But he won't delve into this with me.

I do not much care for anything obsvr524 says. But you have not clearly stated what this point is.

Which, from my frame of mind, takes us back to peacegirl's no free will/greater satisfaction rendition of determinism.

Sure, given free will, I am more than willing to acknowledge that the problem here is me: they are right but I am not able to grasp why.

I think you might be on to something here.

Perhaps you might take a stab at it.

I've come late to the conversation, and am not aware of the details of your squabbles yet. Perhaps you could summarise?

Unless, of course, he did provide us with a definitive assessment of determinism. One that has yet to come to my attention.

Can anyone here provide me with it...assuming that it does exist.


Sculptor wrote: Enquiry concerning Human Nature.
You will not find the words "compatibilism", or "determinism". The Language of the time spoke of liberty and necessity. which is in Section 8 If i remember correctly.


I think you will find that Hume's account of the agruments concerning liberty and necessity works as well now as they did in the 18thC.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 857
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:56 pm

Sculptor wrote: WHere does he say that? The dichotomy between empiricism and rationalism characterised in the history of the period is often characterised between a parallel distinctions between Britsh and French philosophy of the time. When you scratch the surface the distinctions don't hold water. It is fashionable; something fo historians to obsess over. Hume go on well with the philosophes. As he travelled widely through Europe.


iambiguous wrote:That's not really my point though.


Sculptor wrote: I do not think you have a point. You simply said you were ignorant of the location of Hume's arguements on Determinism. I furnished you with them.


Once again [compelled or not] you miss my point. And the point of this thread would seem to be aimed at discussing and debating whether you were able to freely opt to furnish me with something else. Or if, instead, you furnished me only with what nature compelled you to furnish me with.

Think of it like this: last night you dreamed that you furnished me with one thing rather than another. Then you wake up and realize you furnished me only with what your brain chemically and neurologically created in the dream itself.

Then you pull back and think: Wow, what if what I furnish in the waking world is also fated and destined to be going back to a complete understanding of the human brain as just more matter inherently in sync with the laws of matter.

Then going all the way back to... :-k

Same with Hume. What if everything he thought, felt, said and did was but a necessary manifestation of nature unfolding only as it ever can?

Sure, on a gut, visceral, intuitive level, we think "no way!"

As though that too can't be but the psychological illusion of "freely" reacting as we do.

My guess: It's all still a profound mystery embedded in mindless matter evolving into self-conscious matter -- "I" -- given the evolution of biological life on planet Earth.

Science and philosophy are still working on that. Though, sure, there are any number of "metaphysical" objectivists among us -- like peacegirl and her author -- who insist that only their own take on it really does pin it all down.

So, are you one of them?

Again, as with what James S. Saint says about determinism above, the real conundrum [as I understand it] revolves more around our seeming inability to pin down beyond all doubt whether what, in fact, any of us say about rationalism/empiricism is or is not only what nature compels us to say. In other words, given the assumption that the human brain is but more matter inherently in sync with the laws of matter.


Sculptor wrote: I suggest you read him before you criticise him, since you seem to have no idea what he is talking about.


Note to others:

Help me out. What is he saying here that makes my point above...irrelevant? Given my own understanding of determinism -- which, like his, even accepting the real deal free will world, is just a leap of faith rooted existentially in dasein -- nature has been compelling me right from the start to read or to not read anything.

Again, he speaks of "rubbish" in this exchange as though we do have free will and can thus make autonomous distinctions between the different takes on rationalism/empiricism.

Now, I'm not arguing that we can't. I'm only noting that "here and now" the arguments of the determinists make more sense to me. Which is why I am curious to explore with obsrvr524 and Sculptor what their own take on Saint's take on determinism above is.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:16 pm

Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.

However, [Hume] was also a sceptic about causation in the metaphysical sense.


"Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality" . Wikipedia

See the problem? How on earth could he -- could we -- even begin to grasp causation metaphysically given the gap I note above? Isn't that ever and always the most exasperating aspect of our "reality"/reality when confronted with determinism?

Yes, there are those here like peacegirl, the author, James S. Saint, obsrvr524 -- and Sculptor? -- who seem [to me] to argue emphatically that they have in fact closed that gap and present us with either the optimal or the only rational assessment of all this.

Which, assuming I do possess some measure of free will, I then construe to be but another manifestation of what I call the "psychology of objectivism" explored on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

And then those like me who trudge on, even while acknowledging the seeming futility of the effort itself. Why? Again, in my view, that is rooted in the profoundly problematic parameters of dasein. The experiences that encompassed the particular and unique life that "I" have lived have simply predisposed me to come back to it over and over again.

Unless, in what still completely boggles my mind, nature really is behind it all!
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:31 pm

I'm afraid that too has come down as a simulated cliché by now: In the Brothers Karamazov, assailed by the question of the return of Christ, the. Grand Inquisitor admits that a repeat crucifiction would reoccur.

So the 'unless' may convince You, but You'd be stuck in the Imitation of Christ mode, which is a carryover genre of pre-nihilistic mentality ca.pre-revolutionary Russia.
Last edited by Meno_ on Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9054
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:33 pm

Meno_ wrote:I'm afraid that too has come down as a simulated cliché by now: In the Brothers Karamazov, assailed by the question of the return of Christ, the. admits that a repeat crucifiction would reoccur.

So the 'unless' may convince You, but You'd be stuck in the Imitation of Christ mode, which is a carryover genre of pre-nihilistic mentality ca.pre-revolutionary Russia.


Note to nature:

Explain yourself!!! 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:40 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Meno_ wrote:I'm afraid that too has come down as a simulated cliché by now: In the Brothers Karamazov, assailed by the question of the return of Christ, the. admits that a repeat crucifiction would reoccur.

So the 'unless' may convince You, but You'd be stuck in the Imitation of Christ mode, which is a carryover genre of pre-nihilistic mentality ca.pre-revolutionary Russia.


Note to nature:

Explain yourself!!! 8)




Nature encloses all things implicit in what is defined by the descriptive 'natural'

In which case I and You and everyone is a natural being, a child of nature, as it were. Some reject this as a pantheistic trick of simulated cognitive constructs; as per the school of the positivists especially Wittgeinstein.


Continue in 1 hour put in suspense.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9054
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:52 pm

Meno_ wrote:Nature encloses all things implicit in what is defined by the descriptive 'natural'

In which case I and You and everyone is a natural being, a child of nature, as it were. Some reject this as a pantheistic trick of simulated cognitive constructs; as per the school of the positivists especially Wittgeinstein.


Continue in 1 hour put in suspense.


Note to nature:

No, seriously, how do you think these things up?!
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:59 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Nature encloses all things implicit in what is defined by the descriptive 'natural'

In which case I and You and everyone is a natural being, a child of nature, as it were. Some reject this as a pantheistic trick of simulated cognitive constructs; as per the school of the positivists especially Wittgeinstein.


Continue in 1 hour put in suspense.


Note to nature:

No, seriously, how do you think these things up?!



A-priori


Seriously, I guess some concept, later turning into some kind of proposed idea, emerges, on a sub-conscious level, and turns into a 'proposition' that is one that becomes available on a wide, extended series of associations.

A revelation of sorts, emerging out of a long subliminal seed, left there ,in a kind of internal hybernation.

The goal must always be a vague and mysterious one akin to the bloomed forthright feeling that has come to be known generally as living for the moment, open to all kinds of experiences, thought fragments, analysis, venture into the belly of the beast: the underworld, while engaging in flights of concurrent fancy.

And always remembering that probably Meni, the one who was said to relearn already programmed paradigms of pre-existing patterns, become pre-existent only at the point in time if it's definable existence.


[[[Only in this way can the luxury of the poverty of the soul be remedied. ( remedie- >>> re- med-(middle) = bring it back to the middle, between the a-priori ( prior) and the synthetic ( what comes after to verify it>>>>>>>>>>> a-priori synthetic<<>]<><<<>>]]]


The bracketed stuff is merely gor those who need
signs before symbols to affix to recall.( me for instane-----making identification less effusive as sloppy math.


Not to worry this method is not weird or even challenging , and years if prostrated meditation under a Bodhi tree has been short cutted by Buddha for our benefit, and for The Christ, Lao-Tzu, and all who would like to expunge the guilt that the condemned may feel for the sense of their own singular existence
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9054
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jun 07, 2021 7:25 pm

Meno_ wrote:

A-priori


Something I could actually understand!

With you, though, nature just couldn't leave well enough alone:


Meno_ wrote:Seriously, I guess some concept, later turning into some kind of proposed idea, emerges, on a sub-conscious level, and turns into a 'proposition' that is one that becomes available on a wide, extended series of associations.

A revelation of sorts, emerging out of a long subliminal seed, left thetr, in a kind of internal hybernation.

The goal must always be a vague and mysterious one akin to the bloomed forthright feeling that has come to be known generally as living for the moment, open to all kinds of experiences, thought fragments, analysis, venture into the belly of the beast: the underworld, while engaging in flights of concurrent fancy.

And always remembering that probably Meni, the one who was said to relearn already programmed paradigms of pre-existing patterns, become pre-existent only at the point in time if it's definable existence.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 07, 2021 8:16 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Meno_ wrote:

A-priori


Something I could actually understand!

With you, though, nature just couldn't leave well enough alone:


Meno_ wrote:Seriously, I guess some concept, later turning into some kind of proposed idea, emerges, on a sub-conscious level, and turns into a 'proposition' that is one that becomes available on a wide, extended series of associations.

A revelation of sorts, emerging out of a long subliminal seed, left thetr, in a kind of internal hybernation.

The goal must always be a vague and mysterious one akin to the bloomed forthright feeling that has come to be known generally as living for the moment, open to all kinds of experiences, thought fragments, analysis, venture into the belly of the beast: the underworld, while engaging in flights of concurrent fancy.

And always remembering that probably Meni, the one who was said to relearn already programmed paradigms of pre-existing patterns, become pre-existent only at the point in time if it's definable existence.




It can't leave me alone because, I have to to really understand the facets of design/dasein which structures a difference in meaning :

I am going from this source toward it:


"
Abstract: 

The concept of a priori does not belong to Heidegger’s favourite or most familiar concepts. Unlike concepts such as, e.g., Sein, physis, ousia, idea, aletheia, etc., it is not given detailed discussions in his works. When it occurs – mostly in the 1920s – it has the usual meaning it has come to obtain in early modern philosophy ever since Kant. A characteristic occurrence of the term crops up in his main work: “‘A-priorism’ is the method of every scientific philosophy which understands itself.” (“Der »Apriorismus« ist die Methode jeder wissenschaftlichen Philosophie, die sich selbst versteht” (Sein und Zeit, p. 50 = Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie & Edward Robinson, p. 490, note x). To claim that this concept does not rank in Heidegger’s innermost vocabulary is, however, not to claim that he totally ignored or overlooked it. On the contrary: Heidegger was well aware that this concept is closely related to two of his most central concepts or themes: those of time and – through it – to Being. – The paper proposes to explore these dimensions in subsequent steps. First it is shown that, in his critical confrontation of Husserl’s phenom­enology, Heidegger appreciated very much Husserl’s efforts to reconstruct “the original sense of a priori” by disengaging it from the subject. Heidegger takes up and radicalizes Husserl’s effort to de-subjectivate this concept in claiming that a priori is a designation of being. Towards the end of the 1927 lecture course (=GA 24) Heidegger comes to expand on the theme more in detail. He says that the original sense of a priori in terms of “earlier” contains a clear reference to time; it is, therefore, a temporal determination. He claims that earlier than any possible “earlier” is time or temporality. This makes it possible to speak meaningfully about something such as “earlier” at all. Time may, accordingly, be called to be the “earliest” of everything that may come “earlier”– it is, indeed, the a priori of all possible a prioris, preceding these and making them possible. On the other hand, preceding all beings is being as such. Being is “earlier” than beings. From this perspective, Being is the absolute a priori. A priori is then both a temporal and an ontological concept. Time, however, understood in terms of its relation to being, is not to be accounted for by and in terms of the common concept of time in the sense of intratemporality. Philosophy as an a priori science is both an ontological and a temporal science, and that is what Heidegger’s main thesis according to which Being and Time belong together comes down to. – In subsequent parts of the paper a possible objection is examined at some length, namely, whether it is not a misunderstanding, on Heidegger’s part, to claim that “earlier” is always and in any case a “temporal” determination, whether, in other words, one could not – and indeed, should not – rather make a distinction between “temporal” and “logical” sequence or succession. This objection is countered with reference to the fact that, in order to reasonably formulate the dichotomy temporal–logical, one must tacitly presuppose a restricted, that is, non-Heideggerian concept of time. A final dilemma emerges with regard to whether and to what extent Heidegger’s assumption of his radically new concept of time can legitimately be linked to (or opposed to) traditional concepts of time – a dilemma pretty much the same as the ones regarding whether and to what extent his radically new concepts, e.g., of history and being, can be linked to, and derived from, a critical confrontation (=destruction) of the philosophical tradition. This dilemma is claimed to pertain to the linguistic dimension of philosophy (that is, of how, with what conceptuality a philosopher addresses or names his subject matter), and it seems hardly able to be overcome."


And this:


"Skip to Article Content
Skip to Article Information
Wiley Online Library
The Southern Journal of PhilosophyVolume 53, Issue 4 p. 493-516
Original Article

Heidegger and the Essence of Dasein
Nate Zuckerman

First published: 01 December 2015





Abstract

Being and Time argues that we, as Dasein, are defined not by what we are, but by our way of existing, our “existentiell possibilities.” I diagnose and respond to an interpretive dilemma that arises from Heidegger's ambiguous use of this latter term. Most readings stress its specific sense, holding that Dasein has no general essence and is instead determined by some historically contingent way of understanding itself and the meaning of being at large. But this fails to explain the sense in which Being and Time is a work of fundamental ontology, concluding in Heidegger's claim to have found the meaning of Dasein's being in the concept of originary temporality. On the other hand, readings that stress the general sense of “existentiell possibilities” find Heidegger on a fruitless quest for the transcendental conditions necessary for Dasein's existence, which seems to founder on the claims that Dasein is constitutively thrown, factical, and “in-each-case-mine” [jemeinig]. Both readings are problematic and, I contend, result from a failure to disambiguate and explain the ontologically unique relationship between the specific and general aspects of Dasein's essence. I argue that we can better explain this relationship, Heidegger's method for investigating it, and the sense in which Dasein has an essence that is open to philosophical investigation, if we read Being and Time's ontology of Dasein in terms of what Anton Ford calls “categorial” genus-species relationships."


Copyright © 1999-2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reservedWiley Home Page



Where contrary to Peacegirl's stance of being able to formulate a resolved , complete but topically definitive resolution to the OP without ontolological basis, making it somewhat immaterially vacious; I propose the needless effort to read Husserl and Heidegger in toto, but only differentiate and cut off relevant parts a justifiable effort to support the material in question.

I offer the above the twofold approaches to try and signify a problem with a severely simplified solution to meaning and structure. So that a common basis of exploration could be commenced , with or without the absolute correlation of mathematics and meaning.


And, these mo dally possible applications go to the very heart of Great Again's idea in the treatment of 'fuzzy logic' as in the implications of the following, which to wrest the non intentionality from the inert past qualification to the modern passage of transcendental logic.This transition from the prior identifiable system relating to it's technical feasibility, places the system'fulcrum of stability more in terms of the fuzzily calculated determination toward the presence of increasing variables.
So in terms of 'fuzzy' math, the onus bears on the differentiality of the identifiable variables. And such fuzziness effects and affects an continuum of an appearently insignificant shift from one to the other.


meno.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9054
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jun 07, 2021 9:31 pm

Meno_ wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Meno_ wrote:

A-priori


Something I could actually understand!

With you, though, nature just couldn't leave well enough alone:


Meno_ wrote:Seriously, I guess some concept, later turning into some kind of proposed idea, emerges, on a sub-conscious level, and turns into a 'proposition' that is one that becomes available on a wide, extended series of associations.

A revelation of sorts, emerging out of a long subliminal seed, left thetr, in a kind of internal hybernation.

The goal must always be a vague and mysterious one akin to the bloomed forthright feeling that has come to be known generally as living for the moment, open to all kinds of experiences, thought fragments, analysis, venture into the belly of the beast: the underworld, while engaging in flights of concurrent fancy.

And always remembering that probably Meni, the one who was said to relearn already programmed paradigms of pre-existing patterns, become pre-existent only at the point in time if it's definable existence.




It can't leave me alone because, I have to to really understand the facets of design/dasein which structures a difference in meaning :

I am going from this source toward it:


"
Abstract: 

The concept of a priori does not belong to Heidegger’s favourite or most familiar concepts. Unlike concepts such as, e.g., Sein, physis, ousia, idea, aletheia, etc., it is not given detailed discussions in his works. When it occurs – mostly in the 1920s – it has the usual meaning it has come to obtain in early modern philosophy ever since Kant. A characteristic occurrence of the term crops up in his main work: “‘A-priorism’ is the method of every scientific philosophy which understands itself.” (“Der »Apriorismus« ist die Methode jeder wissenschaftlichen Philosophie, die sich selbst versteht” (Sein und Zeit, p. 50 = Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie & Edward Robinson, p. 490, note x). To claim that this concept does not rank in Heidegger’s innermost vocabulary is, however, not to claim that he totally ignored or overlooked it. On the contrary: Heidegger was well aware that this concept is closely related to two of his most central concepts or themes: those of time and – through it – to Being. – The paper proposes to explore these dimensions in subsequent steps. First it is shown that, in his critical confrontation of Husserl’s phenom­enology, Heidegger appreciated very much Husserl’s efforts to reconstruct “the original sense of a priori” by disengaging it from the subject. Heidegger takes up and radicalizes Husserl’s effort to de-subjectivate this concept in claiming that a priori is a designation of being. Towards the end of the 1927 lecture course (=GA 24) Heidegger comes to expand on the theme more in detail. He says that the original sense of a priori in terms of “earlier” contains a clear reference to time; it is, therefore, a temporal determination. He claims that earlier than any possible “earlier” is time or temporality. This makes it possible to speak meaningfully about something such as “earlier” at all. Time may, accordingly, be called to be the “earliest” of everything that may come “earlier”– it is, indeed, the a priori of all possible a prioris, preceding these and making them possible. On the other hand, preceding all beings is being as such. Being is “earlier” than beings. From this perspective, Being is the absolute a priori. A priori is then both a temporal and an ontological concept. Time, however, understood in terms of its relation to being, is not to be accounted for by and in terms of the common concept of time in the sense of intratemporality. Philosophy as an a priori science is both an ontological and a temporal science, and that is what Heidegger’s main thesis according to which Being and Time belong together comes down to. – In subsequent parts of the paper a possible objection is examined at some length, namely, whether it is not a misunderstanding, on Heidegger’s part, to claim that “earlier” is always and in any case a “temporal” determination, whether, in other words, one could not – and indeed, should not – rather make a distinction between “temporal” and “logical” sequence or succession. This objection is countered with reference to the fact that, in order to reasonably formulate the dichotomy temporal–logical, one must tacitly presuppose a restricted, that is, non-Heideggerian concept of time. A final dilemma emerges with regard to whether and to what extent Heidegger’s assumption of his radically new concept of time can legitimately be linked to (or opposed to) traditional concepts of time – a dilemma pretty much the same as the ones regarding whether and to what extent his radically new concepts, e.g., of history and being, can be linked to, and derived from, a critical confrontation (=destruction) of the philosophical tradition. This dilemma is claimed to pertain to the linguistic dimension of philosophy (that is, of how, with what conceptuality a philosopher addresses or names his subject matter), and it seems hardly able to be overcome."


And this:


"Skip to Article Content
Skip to Article Information
Wiley Online Library
The Southern Journal of PhilosophyVolume 53, Issue 4 p. 493-516
Original Article

Heidegger and the Essence of Dasein
Nate Zuckerman

First published: 01 December 2015





Abstract

Being and Time argues that we, as Dasein, are defined not by what we are, but by our way of existing, our “existentiell possibilities.” I diagnose and respond to an interpretive dilemma that arises from Heidegger's ambiguous use of this latter term. Most readings stress its specific sense, holding that Dasein has no general essence and is instead determined by some historically contingent way of understanding itself and the meaning of being at large. But this fails to explain the sense in which Being and Time is a work of fundamental ontology, concluding in Heidegger's claim to have found the meaning of Dasein's being in the concept of originary temporality. On the other hand, readings that stress the general sense of “existentiell possibilities” find Heidegger on a fruitless quest for the transcendental conditions necessary for Dasein's existence, which seems to founder on the claims that Dasein is constitutively thrown, factical, and “in-each-case-mine” [jemeinig]. Both readings are problematic and, I contend, result from a failure to disambiguate and explain the ontologically unique relationship between the specific and general aspects of Dasein's essence. I argue that we can better explain this relationship, Heidegger's method for investigating it, and the sense in which Dasein has an essence that is open to philosophical investigation, if we read Being and Time's ontology of Dasein in terms of what Anton Ford calls “categorial” genus-species relationships."


Copyright © 1999-2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reservedWiley Home Page



Where contrary to Peacegirl's stance of being able to formulate a resolved , complete but topically definitive resolution to the OP without ontolological basis, making it somewhat immaterially vacious; I propose the needless effort to read Husserl and Heidegger in toto, but only differentiate and cut off relevant parts a justifiable effort to support the material in question.

I offer the above the twofold approaches to try and signify a problem with a severely simplified solution to meaning and structure. So that a common basis of exploration could be commenced , with or without the absolute correlation of mathematics and meaning.


And, these mo dally possible applications go to the very heart of Great Again's idea in the treatment of 'fuzzy logic' as in the implications of the following, which to wrest the non intentionality from the inert past qualification to the modern passage of transcendental logic.This transition from the prior identifiable system relating to it's technical feasibility, places the system'fulcrum of stability more in terms of the fuzzily calculated determination toward the presence of increasing variables.
So in terms of 'fuzzy' math, the onus bears on the differentiality of the identifiable variables. And such fuzziness effects and affects an continuum of an appearently insignificant shift from one to the other.


meno.


Uh, wrong thread? :lol:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:08 pm

Iambigious says,

"Uh, wrong thread?" :lol:[/quote]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Fishing for relevance through partially derived reference other then through an undifferentiated
generic composited meaning of a-priori senses of meaning.

Hypothetical approaches tk determination are conducive to other objectless indefinite presumptions.

But may be off point or tangency, I confess.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9054
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:22 pm

Meno_ wrote: Iambigious says,

"Uh, wrong thread?" :lol:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Meno_ wrote:Fishing for relevance through partially derived reference other then through an undifferentiated
generic composited meaning of a-priori senses of meaning.

Hypothetical approaches tk determination are conducive to other objectless indefinite presumptions.

But may be off point or tangency, I confess.


Actually, I was addressing that inquiry to nature. Sorry for the confusion.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:16 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:In the Jamesian world that is pretty easy -
A god ≡ who/whatever incontestably determines what can or cannot be concerning a particular situation.
The God ≡ Who/Whatever incontestably determines All that can or cannot be concerning any situation.


Okay, so how are we to understand this given Saint's contention here:

"Determinism proposes that there is nothing in the universe that is independent of everything else. This is necessarily true because existence is the ability to have affect upon something else which means that all things must also be affected by something else. The end result is determinism."

Just how far does Saint take "there is nothing in the universe that is independent of everything else"? No exceptions? Does it include his assessment of A God/The God? Does it include the reactions of those who disagree with him here? Does it include me typing these words and you reading them?

In other words, is there anything that we do, given his own assessment of determinism above, that those who embrace free will would, in fact, claim as their own contention?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:20 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Meno_ wrote: Iambigious says,

"Uh, wrong thread?" :lol:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Meno_ wrote:Fishing for relevance through partially derived reference other then through an undifferentiated
generic composited meaning of a-priori senses of meaning.

Hypothetical approaches tk determination are conducive to other objectless indefinite presumptions.

But may be off point or tangency, I confess.


Actually, I was addressing that inquiry to nature. Sorry for the confusion.




No problem, my bad , but i thought my being in nature not much distinct from being a natural product of natures. So I felt comfortable r or answering for Her, since She can't literally express Herself, except through people like me, who try to keep very close to Her.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9054
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:22 pm

Meno_ wrote:
No problem, my bad , but i thought my being in nature not much distinct from being a natural product of natures. So I felt comfortable r or answering for Her, since She can't literally express Herself, except through people like me, who try to keep very close to Her.


Trust me: even nature gets confused here.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:49 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Meno_ wrote:
No problem, my bad , but i thought my being in nature not much distinct from being a natural product of natures. So I felt comfortable r or answering for Her, since She can't literally express Herself, except through people like me, who try to keep very close to Her.


Trust me: even nature gets confused here.




Nature can get confused as well as Saint James and You and i, and You excluding anything that may not relate to Nature, may conflate the parts excluded, as if they had independent existence. But does not such assumed independence of parts of nature excluded, present the problem of identifying them before excluding them from Nature?

So here my brash inference that Your communication with. Obsrvr 524 , may in fact be meant by Peace girl , also part writer of The Author's intended work, offer some analogycal reflection of shared views?

If, so, my brash intrusion into other writers by paraphrase, my be less severely judged.

My point is to reflect on the exclusion principle, between two conflicting ways to reference the level of insight into them.vis. the level of conflation between them.Are they determinately conflated it excluded, or, does such determination stem from a deeper, pre determined level, not leaving much room for free will.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9054
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby Sculptor » Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:23 am

iambiguous wrote:
Once again [compelled or not] you miss my point. And the point of this thread would seem to be aimed at discussing and debating whether you were able to freely opt to furnish me with something else. Or if, instead, you furnished me only with what nature compelled you to furnish me with.

It is the SAME thing.
You are NOT making a distinction here.
When you get that you will be home and dry.

I'd take exception to your langauge. There is no "complusion" here, only determination.
Your distinction only makes sense if you think yourself unnatural or supernatural.
We are our nature.

Like I said. Maybe you should read Hume rather than dance?
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 857
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Tue Jun 08, 2021 3:30 pm

Sculptor says:

"Your distinction only makes sense if you think yourself unnatural or supernatural.
We are our nature."




Including our unnatural and supernatural aspects.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9054
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jun 08, 2021 5:09 pm

Meno_ wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Meno_ wrote:
No problem, my bad , but i thought my being in nature not much distinct from being a natural product of natures. So I felt comfortable r or answering for Her, since She can't literally express Herself, except through people like me, who try to keep very close to Her.


Trust me: even nature gets confused here.




Nature can get confused as well as Saint James and You and i, and You excluding anything that may not relate to Nature, may conflate the parts excluded, as if they had independent existence. But does not such assumed independence of parts of nature excluded, present the problem of identifying them before excluding them from Nature?

So here my brash inference that Your communication with. Obsrvr 524 , may in fact be meant by Peace girl , also part writer of The Author's intended work, offer some analogycal reflection of shared views?

If, so, my brash intrusion into other writers by paraphrase, my be less severely judged.

My point is to reflect on the exclusion principle, between two conflicting ways to reference the level of insight into them.vis. the level of conflation between them.Are they determinately conflated it excluded, or, does such determination stem from a deeper, pre determined level, not leaving much room for free will.


Note to nature:

Why do you compel him to reconfigure my "I" into his You? You have always compelled me to wonder about that. Well, now I compel you to explain it to me.

As for all the rest, your bad?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jun 08, 2021 5:37 pm

Sculptor wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Once again [compelled or not] you miss my point. And the point of this thread would seem to be aimed at discussing and debating whether you were able to freely opt to furnish me with something else. Or if, instead, you furnished me only with what nature compelled you to furnish me with.

It is the SAME thing.
You are NOT making a distinction here.
When you get that you will be home and dry.


Again, let's bring this down to earth with Mary's abortion above. Given my understanding of your understanding of free will/determinism, there is no distinction to be made between Mary freely opting of her own subjective volition to abort her unborn baby/clump of cells and her aborting it because her brain matter wholly in sync with nature's laws of matter could only have compelled her to do what she did because all reality -- human or otherwise -- is only as it ever could have been. Period as it were.

Is that what you are arguing?

Suppose Mary had a particularly vivid dream that she aborted her fetus. She wakes up in a cold sweat because she is intent on giving birth. What is the definitive relationship between the chemical and neurological reality the brain creates in the dream and the chemical and neurological interactions that occur in her brain while awake.

What "secret ingredient" that scientists and philosophers each continue to probe in their own way will explain why the dream reality and waking world reality are very, very different?

That ingredient which many religious folks attribute to God.

Also, given your understanding of free will/determinism how is this...

Sculptor wrote: I'd take exception to your langauge. There is no "complusion" here, only determination.
Your distinction only makes sense if you think yourself unnatural or supernatural.
We are our nature.


...applicable to Mary choosing an abortion?

Sculptor wrote: Like I said. Maybe you should read Hume rather than dance?


And, like I said, given my own "here and now" understanding of determinism, I will read or not read Hume [again] only in accordance with what nature compels me to.

Explain then how it all works when you read Hume. Do you "read" him, read him or, as with peacegirl, "read" him.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]