Yes, computers use mathematics. They assimilate (make similar) electronic signals (or even light) to an already established 1; if the input is not sufficient, they don’t register anything, which is symbolised by 0 (zero). So the computer does the same as its maker, man: it assimilates/simplifies impressions. This proves nothing as to the supposed correspondence of mathematics to the physical world.
How do you know what I thought? As a matter of fact, Euclid is in “The Classical Greek Reader”, which I own. But my example regarded mathematics, not geometry.
I gave an example, which you dismissed as not being an example of what you were discussing (geometry). I promptly came up with another example that was, and you, unable to dismiss or tackle with it, started whining.
Er, no, it was just an example. I promptly provided another. I can provide more, if you want.
It means that the concept of “infinity” is nonsense, for one.
No such thing as an infinitely long line.
No such thing as an infinitely narrow line.
No such thing as a perfectly straight line.
No such thing as a mathematical line.
Valuable time spent reading back old posts. I wasn’t aware anymore that I had been so very close for years before my mind clicked.
See he notion of self-valuing in formation from excess:
Here can be seen the enormous difference between what I mean with self-valuing and its interpretation as self-interest or self-conservation through minimizing harm. But I will readily admit that throughout the process of clarifying the mechanism and the logic, the excess from which it sprung fell to the theoretical background - and this excess is the true ‘logic’ behind the theory - the standard on which the logic relies. Absolute positivity – which is so radically different from the present human condition that the task of connecting the two simply has to start somewhere, anywhere. It is already certain that a dozen chalices will have to be hallowed and broken before the proper drink can be poured.
God recognizes the insular. Remember him saying every hair of your body is counted, that was enough to overcome his reservation as to deciding between , to be, or not.
Its like a crop effect in a picture-edit, the more you chop off, the more the picture magnifies, emerging like a sculpture from a potter’s wheel of churning, and appears like an image in the mirror of our soul. Beholding such self-knowledge in all its entirety without shaming, tearing, hiding, masking, banishing any part whispers a Power to be able to do so.
This is self-joy, as opposed to the Pleasure of self-indulgence, if you get me.
The chopping has a nature of, “By doing we forego.” [N., JW, 304]:
“At bottom I abhor all those moralities which say: “Do not do this! Renounce! Overcome yourself!” But I am well disposed toward those moralities which goad me to do something and do it again, from morning till evening, and then to dream of it at night, and to think of nothing except doing this well, as well as I alone can do it. When one lives like that, one thing after another drops off. Without hatred or aversion one sees this take its leave today and that tomorrow, like yellow leaves that any slight stirring of the air takes off a tree. He may not even notice that it takes its leave; for his eye is riveted to his goal – forward, not sideward, backward, downward. What we do should determine what we forego; by doing we forego – that is how I like it, that is my placitum. But I do not wish to strive with open eyes for my own impoverishment; I do not like negative virtues – virtues whose very essence it is to negate and deny oneself something.”
I would suggest the books “The Seduction of Unreason” and “Heidegger’s Children” by Richard Wolin, as he takes a good look at the history of Heidegger, the intellectual culture and times in which he lived and the poststructuralist condemnation of his ideas and our subsequent intellectual romance with fascism. Both books are well researched and attainable and I highly suggest them. Be warned that “The Seduction of Unreason” also covers the flaws in Nietzschean philosophies.
A short and narrow problem with Heidegger is one of language and where he was in time. He loved making up new words and explanations for those words that were hard for people to understand and interpret and didn’t fully understand the rest of the world outside of European intellectualism, but spoke about them like he knew and understood. Are there more specific issues you have with Heidegger’s philosophies? Maybe we can start there and discuss each one. That would be much easier and I think more beneficial to an understand of where Heidegger was coming from and where it went wrong.
Jakob, Absolute positivity entails absolute identity, where as many chalices possible to achieve this may not connect the two. That is what is below all conditions by which the function of Dasein can be approximated. It is below the two, in the realm of the one, where the two becomes one. They cannot meet , they cannot become one or meet at a point because at that point, they do not rise to the level of
Heidegger’s existence philosophy teaches that the nothing(ness) becomes obvious or evident by the fear („Angst“) in which always lies a move back from something which is in reality the nothing(ness). The essence of the nothing(ness) is the nihilation, namely the repellent or resisting reference to the sinking entity in the entirety, meaning to the nothingness of all entity.
Martin Heidegger wrote:
„Worum sich die Angst ängstet, ist das In-der-Welt-sein selbst.“ (Martin Heidegger, Sein und Zeit, 1927, S. 187).
Martin Heidegger wrote:
„In der hellen Nacht des Nichts der Angst entsteht erst die ursprüngliche Offenbarkeit des Seienden als eines solchen: daß es Seiendes ist - und nicht Nichts. Einzig weil das Nichts im Grunde des Daseins offenbar ist, kann die volle Befremdlichkeit des Seienden über uns kommen und die Grundfrage der Metaphysik: Warum ist überhaupt Seiendes und nicht vielmehr Nichts?“ (Martin Heidegger, Was ist Metaphysik?, 1929).
The fear („Angst“) isolates the existence („Dasein“) and opens it in this way as possible being („Möglich-Sein“), as free being („Frei-Sein“) for the freedom („Freiheit“) of the self chosing („Sich-selbst-wählen“) and self seizing („Sich-selbst-Ergreifen“).
The being in the world („In-der-Welt-Sein“) is the transcendental basic constitution („Grundverfassung“) of the existence („Dasein“). The concept of the „In-der-Welt-Sein“ deactivates the consciousness concept and the of subject/object dualism.
But see, you have imprudently discerned them as underlying discernibility. Sein und Zeit is a given-up attempt of doing that without doing it.
Value ontology is the abnegation of the will to do it, and the resolution to do the sensible thing instead.
Have a model wherein this distinction does not exist, but into which the distinction can be fluidly resolved, without the elements losing their functional attributes – their juxtaposing cognitive hooks which allow for grammar to take place.
Heidegger identifies, here and usually without saying it (which is unwise and simply poetic), the mind, and not being.
Dasein is “Man in his mind” - Bauen, Wohnen, Denken.
The hole in the donut of being, basically - the fact that the mind has to contemplate in contrasts and thus as soon as it contemplates “Being” as some sort of whole, or “thing”, it evokes the idea of Non-being, also as a “thing”.
The absurdity of identifying being as an object, is the same stupidity of speaking of “the universe” – “being as a whole” is in fact negated by the actually referred meaning of the term being; i.e. phenomena, experience, the scientifically measured world; open ended conceptions.
This would be an interesting subject for a book. The interest would be to revaluate fear, to come to see it as the requirement of courage/freedom/choice/identity - and in a mans fear is his character reflected. Ethos anthropos daimon…
Heidegger’s problem was that he was a charlatan. I never really read him, but based on everything I read, it appears to me to be the case (I can’t read every single fucking imbecile in his entirety just so that I can be able to pass my judgment, you see.) I mean, what kind of idiot do you have to be to pose questions such as “why is there something rather than nothing”? For anyone with an IQ above that of a monkey the imbecility of such a question should become apparent within seconds for there is no such a thing as “nothing” (i.e. nothing is just another something.) With that in mind, the question is revealed to be of the form “why is there X and not Y” which is just another form of “how did X happen?” But what is X in this case? If what is meant is “how did EVERYTHING happen?” (and I am sure that’s EXACTLY what is meant) the question becomes meaningless because in order for such a question to make sense this X must not be everything because in order for such a question to be answerable there must be some other Y that can be said to be the cause of X.
I feel very ashamed to have to post this because it requires from e to assume that pretty much everyone on this topic is a fucking imbecile and part of me is resisting this because I find it extremely hard to believe. It is DEPRESSING to see so many posts seriously addressing such a tripe.
The standard which Heidegger sets is one of general intellect. He who does not grasp H is almost by definition cognitively incapable of recognizing the philosophical challenges of this time.
Anyway, the problem of Heidegger is the problem of man as a species rather than as an individual. The problem is that mankind is not primarily biologically but linguistically detetmined – the dna of the species is human grammar.
Unfortunately this codex overrules the healths and diseases of dna and places weak men in charge. Brutes may clamor for power but as long as force does not penetrate language, it is toothless.
Many would do well to avoid someone who spouts non-sense such as:
Seriously motherfucker? What sort of chemical imbalance one has to suffer from in order to be able to assign such a noble little word that is practice a negative connotation? Practice = reality; everything that is not practice = fiction/laziness/solipsism/armchair philosophy. One would do well to stop right here and skip the goddamn motherfucker. No need for any further inspection, that’s how terrible this statement is.
. . . for even when we merely think, we’re dealing with practice, SIMULATED practice, which is based on our previous experience of practice. The two are in cyclical relationship, you theorize then you act, and when your actions invalidate your theories then you go back to theorizing again and when you’re done fixing your theory you go back to acting again AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
On one hand, you have the modern idiots who despise theory; on the other hand, you have the philosophical solipsists who despise practice.
Or are you going to tell me that I’m misinterpreting the motherfucker? That he’s merely using language in a stupid way? and that his stupid of language is in no way betraying his stupid innate inclinations? and that I should simply CLOSE MY EYES to his pathetic use of language and put up with the bullshit so that in the end I can understand the precise kind of chemical imbalance he suffered from?
And then, there’s your own stupidity, further diminishing my desire to pick him up . . .
Which has absolutely nothing to do with Nietzsche and absolutely everything to do with hedonism i.e. Nietzsche would never reduce anything to joy.
