Moderator: Only_Humean
Pedro I Rengel wrote:To ask why something instead of nothing is itself, the question, a denial of the something there is.
Ecmandu wrote:Nothingness is a lack of its own existence, which forces the opposite; hence, why existence exists.
Guide wrote:This post of the group seems to systematically ignore the philosophic view of the question. And to favour the naive (and often impudent) British view, as in Russell.
In the philosophic view, the question of the meaning of nothing is primary. In the British view, its meaning is part of an assumed standard common sense concerning what nothing ought to say, what it "means to says" in the sense, of what it wants to say. Of course, here, the group is ignoring the first step, a close examination of the Sophist of Plato. On a side note, I notice much of the adolescent enthusiasm some of the group members have for Nietzsche comes in total ignorance of the philosophic tradition in which he was in constant dialog. In the same sense, one must not pretend the problem is raised out of a spontaneous and independent moment, apart from the history of philosophy: i.e., the human being's essence as it now finds itself, ourselves.
"Guide wrote:
This post of the group seems to systematically ignore the philosophic view of the question. And to favour the naive (and often impudent) British view, as in Russell.
In the philosophic view, the question of the meaning of nothing is primary. In the British view, its meaning is part of an assumed standard common sense concerning what nothing ought to say, what it "means to says" in the sense, of what it wants to say. Of course, here, the group is ignoring the first step, a close examination of the Sophist of Plato. On a side note, I notice much of the adolescent enthusiasm some of the group members have for Nietzsche comes in total ignorance of the philosophic tradition in which he was in constant dialog. In the same sense, one must not pretend the problem is raised out of a spontaneous and independent moment, apart from the history of philosophy: i.e., the human being's essence as it now finds itself, ourselves.
Again, for the life of me, I can't decide if this is something that he really does believe is true, or if the intent is ironic --- an attempt to mock those who "argue" like this such that he is exposing the pseudo-intellectual nature of a "general description" on steroids.
Or, perhaps, something more along the lines of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
Which ironically enough was an attempt to mock folks like me: the postmodernists."
Guide wrote:
The group advises a read of Plato's Sophist, with an adequate commentary. It's simply impossible not to understand what the group writes for anyone who has studied philosophy at all. One has increasingly the view that there is no one with any serious philosophic training on the board, beside from this member of the group.
Almost everything written, on the view of this group member, is of enthusiastic armatures with a bare familiarity of academic, that means recent, subject matter of general discussion. It is wholly shallow, and shows that no serious study has been carried out by any of the commentators. Everything said has the general pattern, I don't understand this, it must be unaware of what I was told by a undergrad course instructor or a wiki-page. It must be nonsense!
The group should consider: in philosophy no amount of reading matters a bit without adequate knowledge. Everyone learns this by-the-by, at first through sensing the difference between mere reading and serious study of a text. Then one sees how serious study demands method, and familiarity with possible manners of proceeding, only then does such a mater as the abandonment of method have any sense. In the current academy, which is not even a University in the sense of the pre-war University, but rather a mass-marketed situation of the sale of "education", there is not even knowledge of the distinction between serious study and amateur interpretation: which is ideology.
iambiguous wrote:Ecmandu wrote:Nothingness is a lack of its own existence, which forces the opposite; hence, why existence exists.
That's how some folks here "argue".
They string a bunch of words together that define and defend each other. In a particular order. The logic then goes around and around in circles tautologically.
And not just about something either. About everything.![]()
After all, notice how the post doesn't actually address any of the specific points that I raise above.
And then, not content to ascribe this sort of "definitional logic" to the either/or world, folks of this sort often try to yank the is/ought world into the same sort of scholastic "analysis".
Autodidactically and/or pedantically as it were.
How do you know that "it worked"?My argument is not circular .... nice try to get that blonde around the corner though. It worked.
phyllo wrote:How do you know that "it worked"?My argument is not circular .... nice try to get that blonde around the corner though. It worked.
IOW, you don't have any evidence that he did "get the girl". But you imagine it that way because it confirms your theories about the world.Ecmandu wrote:phyllo wrote:How do you know that "it worked"?My argument is not circular .... nice try to get that blonde around the corner though. It worked.
Guys who contradict themselves and cannibalize their own rationality, always get the girl. Part of the reason the structure of the cosmos needs remaking.
Guide wrote:A member of the group that has read Nietzsche for 25 years says: he gets worse and more insubstantial, less volatile, as one goes along. He lifted a great deal from Schopenhauer, and also simply plagiarized George Berkeley, in some cases verbatim, on the score of 18th century "free thinking", substantially as a theme which he took over. Nietzsche would be simply boring if it were not form his knowing well the Greeks, the tradition, and constantly speaking to Plato, more than to Kant, as one might think judging by the mentions of Kant (this is Schopenhauer speaking to Kant). and the superficial and silly denouncement of the transcendental thinking, as discovery of a "faculty".
This group answer should ask: what is the "life-giving lie" in Nietzsche? Why does Nietzsche say the truth is "deadly". Nietzsche rejects the truth, that there is no truth, and makes a new "law tablet". Nietzsche calls the philosophy the Geistigste, most spiritual, will-to-Macht. I.e., Nietzsche does not abandon god, but a god, the Christian god, in order to set Dionysus, the "creative", in his place.
Explication: god was a name for finding out what humans deep down really thought the world was: what is Justice?, what is Good? Now they think it is something still being made.
I'll write another post on this boring Nietzsche raging on theme, just to be more expressionisticly fulsome.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users