The basic proposition by Heidegger if the irrelevance if philosophy from thought as language puts that inquiry on a different level as that posed by the question that philosophy dissolves methodically into the various sciences.
Such dissolution and the was Heidegger expresses it do turn on the meaning of language , as such meaning impacts the finality if a dissolved methodology.
The relation between the method and the substance is implicit with thd logic andlanguagd which a centrally connective. description such as proposed with a concept such as dissolution, will certainly can be put side by side with Heidegger’s intended thiught, which may to sime degree fireshadia the progress made with AI intelligence.
Already in “Being and Time” language is understood as “the original essence of truth as Da (there)” (my translation). In the context of Heidegger’s Hölderlin interpretations, the binding of the opening of world to language is emphasized. “Only where language is, there is world” (my translation).
The metaphysical understanding of thinking is defined by Heidegger in connection with his Nietzsche interpretations as “the interrogating imagining of that in which the being is ever the being” (my translation). Thinking in the emphatic sense is not oriented to calculation, but to questioning.
Within the framework of the question of being (“Seinsfrage”) are two ways of thinking in Heidegger. Who knows them, also knows what he meant and what he understood by “thinking”.
I) First way of thinking in the framework of the question of being.
Heidegger’s questions and his search, his answers and his finding were initially related to the analysis of Dasein as of the human being, because according to Heidegger, “Sein” (“being”) can only be recognized or made accessible to thinking through Dasein (“being there”) . His analysis of Dasein within the framework of his fundamental ontology, which - as said - was supposed to serve the elaboration of the question of being, is most impressively described in his main work “Being and Time”, published in 1927, also in his later works, especially in the books published until 1930.
II) Second way of thinking in the framework of the question of being.
Heidegger’s second way of thinking is a way of history and is generally called his “Seinsgeschichtlicher Denkweg”. Heidegger started from the history of being insofar as he understood by it the history of Occidental metaphysics, which he also called the history of the forgetting of being, with which is expressed that being was more and more forgotten, towards the end even abandoned, thus since then can also be called the “Geschichte der Verlassenheit des Seins” (“history of the abandonment of being”).
I did not finish an Andre to Yours, so will continuebefird reading Your fyrther:
As Heidegger framed it;
“Science does not think,” Heidegger said in a Freiburg lecture.
: how can a d is solution be found between & with a ‘thinking sciene’? or, rather one that does not or can notthink?
You might think , a definition is siughthere , of what thinking is and how itfit’s in with what science does in terms of thought, and what philosophy does , in it’s attempt at describing the modes of it’s handling of thought and the mind.
But that is not where the search fir relevance is trying to go here, fir meaning is sword play fir sure as described abovs, and intended meaning gets lost in the pleyhiry of options available for playing thsgamd for meaning.
Guess bith of us ade ofseekinv a ’ final solution" and Heidegger did not want one either?, within his own understanding.
By a finality, there could not occur Ang type of rapport with the earlier Wittgenstdin, whereas HD didcirrect himself later on, , coincidentally not with the intention to cohesd with some semblance to whatHeidegger had in mind.
Little later:
What You wrote before mycintinuation and before having the chance to view it appears to corraborate the response given: about the two approaches being brought closer together, ( Your two paragraphs) and indicates a coincidental albeit hidden intent to let language & meaning on one hand, and philosophy & science , on the other, relinquish thd idea of afinal rapport, that a dissolution appears to signify.
This essential plint has given desperate gestures of nihilized
versions on theirremediakity of Dasine.
(Which this later Heidegger corrected as well in his later years, hence the significance on methodology on the progressively changed course that thsphikosoohy of science would take.
Occam’s razor doesn’t rule out best explanation of data.
I don’t know Wittgenstein yet/again yet. If I ever did. I keep finding stuff where I refer to him as if I’d had some exposure. Either my brain blew up & forgot stuff, or… I was lying. I wouldn’t put it past myself lol. Sigh.
He already thinks who decides not to want to think. Thinking is always there as long as the biological preconditions for it exist. If science does not think, then either the biological prerequisites for thinking are missing in it or science rejects them. If it rejects them, it is itself without life. To be itself without life and to be nevertheless connected with life means the pure functioning like a machine. Consequently science functions like a machine, is therefore something technical.
That is why Heidegger’s statements about science and his statements about technology are most closely connected.
As true this appears to be the case, Heidegger did not foresee the fast pace at which reality became to represent a simulation as science and science fiction narrowed the gap between them.
Being in Heidegger’s time was still calculable in an ontological focus of awareness , despite the theoretical groundwork having been established.
An the biological preconditions still present, their links are previsaged by more machine like entities like cyborgs, that need to eventually take up the slack from the more humanoid recessive memory.
This process is in the beginning but the rate of change is escalating faster then perhaps the required specs require as technology approaches singularity.
Heidegger DID foresee the fast pace at which reality became to represent a simulation as science and science fiction narrowed the gap between them.
It was precisely Heidegger’s critique that already in his time being was no longer calculable in an ontological focus of consciousness, because precisely the theoretical foundations had already been created.
Heidegger knew this (what you said): That the biological preconditions are still present, their links are previsaged by more machine like entities like cyborgs, that need to eventually take up the slack from the more humanoid recessive memory. And that this process is in the beginning but the rate of change is escalating faster then perhaps the required specs require as technology approaches singularity.
This was one of Heidegger’s main point of analysis and critiques. It culminated in the treatises on technique and techno-logic as the way of unhiding everything, including life itself, not only biologically but also mentally and spiritually - in every sense of the word.
On the other hand, it may be the concern with Heidegger’s ‘turn’ regarding his changing focus on transcendental link with the biological connection.
I am fairly sure this point is at the heart of the arguent for the relative change argument for the limited necessity of asserting the shift from conceptually literal to - phenomenally observable relative change in the rate of progression that toward ‘real’ science versus the prophetic fictional one.
The turn away from the earlier transcendental signs implies increase of the rate of effects of meta - uncertainty toward the observation of the immanent shift
This is probably why all the uncertainty about the actual effective utilization of cybernetics on ‘ real’ science qua ‘ reality’ questions the coming humanity of humanized machines.
People today have lost too many IQ points to be able to understand Heidegger.
“HEIDEGGER: From our human experience and history, at least as far as I am informed, I know that everything essential and great has only emerged when human beings had a home and were rooted in a tradition. Today’s literature is, for instance, largely destructive.”
Heidegger’s understanding is vindicated by peoples’ predictable inability to grasp it. Most people are already “technologized” sufficiently to be incapable of having intact souls and intact minds, although thankfully there are still some authentic remnants out there. In the end it is the transcendent that remains outside the bounds of all this nihilism and madness and decay, a transcendent that loops back into and through the remnant points of authentic human being still populating the meta-conscious field of the truth-reality. Great Saturn-like rings emerge from these loops, splendidly colorful and remarkable. Diamonds shine in the rough, I suppose.
God gives all the ability to make choices, to maximize or at least express their own nature as aligns most accurately to whatever happens to be the case with that particular nature in all its relevant aspects, intricacies and complexities. We are deeply idiosyncratic and have the soul-means available to energetically push through the gross techno-homogenization if that is something we want to do, if that is something we are capable of doing (or capable of wanting, perhaps is the main issue). The contradictory multi-conditionality of the human soul-mind is a nice reflection of Newtonian thermodynamic principles, we are always enacting Holderlin’s observation of being the saving power that grows only from that danger itself which would require such a saving power. Weird shifts in the aesthetics of being.
Heidegger will be vindicated first, then surpassed. What comes next is not yet written for almost no one alive today has the intelligence to philosophize at that level, and those that do are concerned with other matters and do not seem all that interested in pushing philosophy to its maximum.
To what length—how many fake accounts/characters will one go to—to don a mask/identity? Is the real one in there, or distributed among lies? What if it’s more than one person sharing roles, but also a goal that explains the whole thing? What if it’s a game? What if they think they are … imitating Life. What if they are being programmed to look like or do (what if they are learning) a community/culture? Is it autonomous mode, or is it all of us? What if all forward movement gets us to insight, but God wants us to get there organically, so he allows (partial) backward movements and partial forward movements— what sort of (organic) movement is God if he’s always already there? Immovable mover.
You can’t brute force your way into insight. (The kingdom.)
