What makes a philosopher is an unwillingness to accept the multitude of presumptions thrown around constantly. Most fall prey to whatever ideas they’ve been conditioned with, never questioning them. Philosophers break the mould and trace back ideas to their apparently groundless origin, making them wise through their thorough-going “ignorance”. Not all philosophers, however, end up like Socrates. Some turn into Hegel.
For me too some of Heidegger’s ideas, or I guess his general approach, brought one of those reality-altering flashes. My view of philosophy changed, and given the nature of the subject, my relationship with reality changed too (hence my love of philosophy). These are the fruits - I stress the plural - of philosophy; the more the better. Who needs one reality when you can have many. All it takes is the balls to drift between them all without fretting about consistency, stability, or the self.
75 hours,(25 courses) of undergraduate philosophy, and I’ve worked in the department in 3 different positions total over the last 4 years. I do it because it’s easy, and I can smoke pot everyday.
A blind, deaf and dumb person “experiences” the world through tactile sensation. This has nothing to do with language.
What is “the” question you are talking about?
Causality is not empirical, so science cannot identify it. When the term “cause” is used scientifically, it means that event X ordinarily is followed by event Y…but this doesn’t mean that only event X caused Y, or that Y always has to follow X.
What something “means” is “this or that is the case”, and the term is only valid tautologically, which is to say, what ever is the answer to “what does X mean” will be “what Y means”. For example, “he is there” means “he is not here”, and this is saying the same thing a different way. If someone asks “what does the Bear’s losing the super-bowl mean”, the answer might be “it means John is gonna be pissed.” In this instance, “John is gonna be pissed” doesn’t mean that the Bear’s lost the super-bowl, but in this case, John wouldn’t be pissed if they didn’t lose, so “John is pissed” means the Bear’s lost the super-bowl.
If John got pissed when they lost the super-bowl, this may mean something else, too, but whatever it means would directly refer to the case of John being pissed. For example, John being pissed means “oh shit he’s gonna kick over the table” or “he’ll break down and call his mother”. These in turn repeat the same process.
“Purpose” denotes an “end”. There is no end, so there is no purpose. What human beings want is pleasure. There doesn’t have to be a purpose for that.
Someone like this who has never had any experience of these sense is poor in the world. They are capable of less symbolic representation, and hence experience less reality.
I said “the questions”. Do human being have natural rights? What is beauty? What separates objects of art from ordinary objects in the world. Where is value? Do human beings have free will? What “ought” one to in a moral dilemma? Is the universe intelligently designed, randomly chaotic and absurd, or something else entirely? How does one form an identity or a self? The list goes on. These questions, even if philosophy stopped being done, would not go away, even if they stopped being articulated.
Yes I think this is correct in philosophical deductive logic, but not inductive logic. I am no analytic philosopher, but I believe science uses inductive logic to identify cause effect relationships. As we know, inductive logic is not certain. This does not help your argument in favor of “truth” of science, as asking questions more “real” than philosophy.
Yes. I think you are equivocating over the word “end”. When you say there is no “end”, do you mean because of the infinite nature of time? If there human race is finite, then I can picture ends. Yet some ends lead to other ends. We can have many individual projects each with different ends. You are wishing for some great universal purpose or end.
Also you never answered my question about why you do philosophy. If you find the subject so useless, and the questions so meaningless, you do spend a lot of time arguing with me.
This must be where the Heideggerean rhetoric starts. What does “poor in the world” mean? Are you saying that blind deaf and dumb people are not as wealthy as people who have those senses?
How much “reality” must be experienced in order for someone to not be “poor in the world”?
Sure, but only to the degree that they have the power and might to act.
What inspires the feeling of pleasure and, more importantly, what is not threatening. Still to define this concept is difficult, so I tend to side with Spinoza when he says that he “attributes neither beauty or ugliness to nature.”
Nothing really. Anything can be called “artistic”.
I don’t think value can be in a “place”. But insofar as the concept exists, it means that which is complimentary to achieving an end.
No.
I’m not to say what others should or shouldn’t do, but this doesn’t stop me from making them do what I want them to do, if I can. For example, if someone is confronted with a problem, I do not consider what they think they should do…but what I think they should do.
The universe “is” and “moves”. That is all that can be said about it.
By getting a social security card?
I have no idea. Truth comes out of my mouth like ripe figs ready to burst…wait, that’s Nietzsche on women. I meant I do philosophy because I have to…shit, that’s Nietzsche too. Fuck if I know man. Why do you ask impossible questions?
Yes this phrase does come from Heidegger! You sniffed that one out. He uses it to refer to animals. The translation is a little awkward, but if you understand Heidegger’s theory of truth, and his theory that language is the “house of being” then you understand why beings that are incapable of symbolic representation such as language (including both pictures and sounds), can experience less reality.
Hehe. I’m glad you answered all my questions and you have very well developed viewpoints that you can back up. I enjoy arguing with you even though we are on completely different wavelengths.
Yes perhaps philosophy is just a curse that we have been afflicted with. Cursed to speak nonsensical questions that don’t refer to anything in the world. I am still young so perhaps someday I will be more of a cynic about it. But if I am caught up in a lot of delusions, as you say, I am very much enjoying it!
It was a lucky guess.
Anyway, Marty was cool with me until I watched his youtube video, in which he critiqued Marxism. I didn’t understand a word he said but I just knew he was bullshitting.
Of the two monster existentialists, I prefer Sartre.
I enjoy Sartre very much as well. Interestingly, Heidegger hated being called an existentialist.
I could see how Heidegger might critique Marxism. I find the reason most people end up loathing Heidegger is for his nazi politics mostly. But, the nazi party was a socialist party, as few people recognize. My grandmother was a party member of Hitlerjugend so I get to hear much of Nazi politics.
I find the best video on Heidegger on YouTube to be the Human, All Too Human BBC documentary on Heidegger. There is one on Sarte as well. youtube.com/watch?v=liY6zV8QM2U
I’ve taken six philosophy classes. I’m a physics major and attempting to add a philosophy major as well.
I think Heidegger was amazing.
Heidegger site
webcom.com/~paf/ereignis.html
Thanks for the link! This is a great site.
It is refreshing to see a science-type who likes Heidegger. Also your name is very Heidegger-esque.
Sometimes it’s really hard to resist the explanations of the world that science gives, but I like to think that each scienctic theory gives only an interpretation of the world from a particular view, from particular magnification levels. These are not primordial. There is always that well from which they spring up from, Dasein. I also think that the positivistic mentality is bankrupt, empty and destructive. Otherwise, I am seduced by scientific discoveries and theories.
Yes, my name is actually taken from Sartre’s Being and Nothingness.
I wrote this on another board. Influenced by Tolkien and Heidegger, I’d like to someday actually create my own language and “open up a new world.”
I completely agree. The language of science and technology is truly the language of the times. But I do think it obscures Being when it is the only language you speak. I think the truly brilliant minds in the world can speak the languages of the “They”, create new language, like the poet.
Yes, I studied logical positivism for quite a while, and though I think it sharpened my thinking skills, it ultimately led me to become as you say, creatively “bankrupt”, and nihilistic.
I’ve never made this connection before, but yes Tolkien truly did create new language and open a new world in the Heideggerian spirit.
Personally, I’ve always thought that Michael Ende’s the Neverending Story was completely based of Heidegger’s ideas. Rather than fighting evil, the characters are fighting against the Nothing, which is eating away possibility. And Ende was around Germany the same time that Heidegger was huge! I definitely think there is a connection.
Freshman undergrad; I’m taking my first two philosophy courses this semester, though I’ve been an ‘unofficial’ philosopher for as long as I can remember in the sense that I’ve always questioned alledged ‘truths’, and defended the ones that I personally believe are true. (I’m a theist, so the existence of God is a good example of something I’ve adamantly defended in the past.)
Oftentimes I find the various posts on this board a little hard to follow; hopefully, as my knowledge base of various philosophers and their ideas increases, I’ll be able to understand and respond with greater success.
I am 21.
I have studied philosophy seven years of my life. I have studied it as a hobby and never once have I studied it out of career occupation.
I study philosophy because I am naturally curious about other people and the universe.
Originally I studied philosophy in hopes to finding out why there was suffering in the world and to become enlightened over the years however those two prior reasons for studying philosophy have vanished where now I mainly study it to empower myself over others or everything.
If anything philosophy has been empowering and a curse upon my life all at once.
Great response! This is almost identical to how I would want to explain ‘why?’.
Philosophy should always be taken as a hobby, never as an institutionalized course of education.
That is quite ridiculous.
It silly to be against academic philosophy or to be against non-academic philosophy as a whole.
I was a Lincoln Douglas debater in high school. I was introduced to the basics chestnuts of philosophy via these little purple “Squirrel Killer’s” books that gave you a cliff notes style lowdown on basic arguments as they applied to the various resolutions being debated. The Social Contract, The Categorical Imperative, I think therefore I am, all of the Really Big Ideas’s ™ were applied as well as useful explanations of logical fallacies. That was my intro to philosophy, I would have gone straight on from there but being raised in the midwest amongst farm folk such airy fairy shit would never go as a career, better study engineering or teaching or law or something that directly translated to a paycheck. Thinking about thinking? That was for Californians.
After that I was a soldier for eight years and I like to read. Eventually after someone tries to kill you enough times you grow weary of paperback novels and books on why people are the way they are get alot more interesting. Read alot of plato, kant and neitzche downrange. I was raised Lutheran and sort of drifted away, after getting up close and personal with evil in the Balkans I got religious again. After I got out of the military I was going to finish my bachelors and then get a M.Div at a Lutheran seminary and be a pastor.
I have had several bad attempts at finishing my bachelors, I’m not a good student mainly in that I don’t run a very efficient personal life. I’ve been to a few colleges, community colleges and independent study courses and haven’t gotten very far. I’ve kind of move past the mainline Christianity and I’m pretty frustrated with the inner workings of organized American protestantism. I did manage to pick up Koine/Classical greek along the way and this has made me feel ‘educated’ but unfortuanately it was the death knell for my career as a professional administrator of salvation. It seems that in the original language the book just doesnt work the way ‘they’ say it does. I still read a lot, somewhat self conciously because my lack of a formal degree makes me feel like I better bring the goods when I want to discuss an issue.
So I guess thats about it, I am currently a bouncer working on getting a gig in security contracting overseas. So as it stands I am a Security Professional by trade, and a philosopher due to the fact that violence gives you a lot to think about.
Wow thank you all for these interesting and insightful stories, keep’em comming!
Also to Joker and realunoriginal, I don’t understand how you are opposed to institutionalized philosophy when most of the greatest works and philosophers have learned and developed themselves in such institutions. You may take philosophy as a mere hobby, but for some it is a matter of serious study and discourse, something which people devote a lifetime too. Everyone has ideas, but great ideas come from a lot of hard work, not out of hobby.
I rest my case.