In a message dated 06/07/2004 10:40:23 GMT Standard Time,
[email protected]_ (mailto:aeonpost@xxxxxxxxx) writes:
Judd, you wrote: "Please mention ONE PHILOSOPHER in the history of mankind
who doesn't thematise humanity against the background of their existing as
beings? A child could tell you that every damn human being on the planet can
only be related to or ontologically constituted as a topic of discourse if he or
she exists or existed in the past. If they have no being [if they do not
exist] then they can't be ANYTHING - they can't be talked about or ignored —
because there is/was no 'they' to be addressed. To thematise anything whether
it be animal, vegetable or mineral presupposes that they or it exists [or
existed at some time in the past]."
Chistian
Your comment shows a common and understandable misconception of what
Heideggers means, when he writes about the Being of a being (Sein eines Seienden).
Jud: [one 'd']
There is no: 'Being of Being' — it is a medieval myth based on the crude
notions of dualism they had in those monkish Harry-Potterish days.
Chistian [Sure it isn't Christian?]
Heideggers writing surely doesn't make understanding him easy and I myself
am not sure, to what degree he actually wanted to be understandable or cared
about being understood by others.
Jud:
Heidegger spent a lot of time revising his books both before publication and
together with his publisher. There is absolutely no evidence that he did no
care whether his writing was understood or not.
Chistian
But putting the language and especially the whole case of "Being in itself"
aside for a while (surely it somehow replaces the common concept of god,
which leaves us with the question though, if this alone already discredits it),
Jud:
YES, if it DOES replace the common concept of god then it DOES discredit it
and philosophy, and reduces it to the gutter-level of religion. Such a thing
would render it outside the bounds of serious philosophy and condemn it to the
ground floor of thinking, i. e., theology — which is the preserve of
pederastic priests, US 'born-again' presidents, and lying British Prime Ministers.
Chistain:
I would like to address his concept of "Being of a being", which seems to
hold some ground and shouldn't be cast aside so rashly.
Jud:
There is no "Being of a being," there is just the being experiencing the
process of being a being. But the "process" — the "experience" and the "Being"
don't exist - only the being. The so-called "Being of a being" doesn't exist
to be discussed, [although I make this concession of addressing the myth],
for just the being alone exists. Do you honestly believe that the actions of a
being are separate from the being? Does a person's activities of
stamp-collecting or flushing the toilet exist separately from his being a stamp-collector
or a toilet-flusher? That to my mind is totally childish and ridiculous.
Chistain
If Heideggers writes about the Being of Dasein, or the Being of any kind of
being, he doesn't mean their mere existence, but instead the way HOW this
kind of being is FOR US.
Jud:
'Dasein' doesn't exist other than as a figment of Heidegger's feverish
imagination. It is an abstract noun culled from a grammatical gerund [being there]
No kind of being 'has' a 'Being,' — it's utterly crazy to imagine such a
thing. We can wonder, speculate, predict, ponder, revue, how this experience of
life effected or effects or might in the future work out for us, but
'experience of life' doesn't exist any more than 'existence' exists — what exists is
'the experiencer' and the 'existent.' Heidegger's ideas are extremely vulgar
and crude and of an extremely low intellectual level, ill thought out,
juvenile and so out of date they need a cognitive health warning attached to them.
Chistain:
We and the other kinds of beings don't just exist, but we exist in a certain
way which comes from the way we perceive and interpret ourselves (Dasein)
and other things
(Zeug=things-at-hand, Andere=other human beings, Kunstwerke=pieces of art
etc.).
Jud:
Human beings are conscious of the world they live in — we don't need German
words with silly meaningless metaphysical imports to tell us that — and we
don't need a wacky construction like 'Dasein' to realise that we are humans
enjoying or suffering experiencing being there in the world. It is WE humans
that exist, NOT Heidegger's zany 'Dasein,' or the experience of the actuality of
us being present, materially constituted as human thinking animals.
Chistain:
Each category of beings is/exists in a way, that is shaped by certain rules
and forms of our understanding resp. the way we understand this specific type
of thing.
Jud:
Each entity in the world exists in the way that exists, NOT particularly in
the WAY or MANNER that we humans perceive of it as existing. Entities exist
in correspondence and conformity to the laws of nature, [physics] NOT by the
laws compiled by human beings as their way of understanding those entities. The
concept 'categories' is meaningful only to humans.
Chistain:
Just like Kant, Heidegger is interested in these rules and forms with the
difference, that Heidegger includes more in our understanding, than mere
synthetical or analytical thought. He means to include the underlying
"pre-cognitive" state of ourselves, which is not ruled by reason but still by
trancendental forms, that can be subject to transcendental analysis.
Jud:
'Transcendental analysis' is a laughable term which reflects the desperate
attempt to raise transcendentalism [crude beliefs on level with ignorant
jungle-dwellers] to a status comparable to respectable scientific observation and
analytical process. Such attempts can be likened to monkeys trying to compose
a Shakespearean drama.
Chistain:
Heidegger continues Kants work of a transcentental analysis of the rules of
our understanding process but with a much wider perspective than Kant. Kant
mainly thought of the way we perceive and construct external objects resp. the
external world - Heideggers tried to include, if not every aspect, then at
least many different aspects of our understanding of and acting in the world.
Jud:
That which is not guided by reason is unreasonable, and "unreasonable"
equals — absurd and inappropriate — inconsistent with reason or logic or common
sense according to my dictionary. This sums up freaks like Heidegger and his
dotty mentor [who he stabbed in the back] perfectly.
Chistain:
I agree with you, that Heideggers views are not as revolutionary and new, as
purported by many of his followers. I would like to add though, that
especially his ideas in "Being and Time", that deal with the transcendental
structure of our understanding and the world, are worth taking a close look at.
Jud:
I have 'taken a look at it' for the last 35 years and consider it the load
of old nonsense now in the same way I considered it a [dangerous] load of old
nonsense then. There is no: "transcendental structure of our understanding
and the world" There is US - and there is that which forms the parts of our
world. Airy-faery doctrines such as Heidegger's reinforce ignorance and
superstition in the west at a time when clear-thinking and analytic responses are
required. If the twin serpents of Transcendentalism and Christianity is not
strangled and stamped upon the west will be overcome.
Chistain:
And lastly let me express my disappointment about the type of language you
allow yourself to use.
Jud:
I don't ALLOW myself to do anything. There is no duality of authoritative
self over a compliant body, where an inner 'I' gives permissions for certain
actions. I use the language I do because the holism which is me [known to the
outside word as Jud Evans] WANTS TO. I am so used to being vilified by
transcendentalists that I have developed a natural combative style. I am not at all
like this on other lists — just The Heidyite ones. I mean no personal
discourtesy — my attacks are not aimed at you or anybody else on this list. My
foeman is the evil of Heideggerianism, not those naive youngsters and
unsophisticated older ones who have been captured by the ontological tricks of the wily
old Nazi Offizieller Komiker des Reiches Herr Martin Slybeggar.
Chistian:
I am new to this list, but I don't think, that I am the only one here or
anywhere else to deem such ways of discourse as being counter-productive and
over all not acceptable, even if they might be understandable from a
psychological point of view. Apart from this I still think, that it is very much worth
while and refreshing to talk to you. With hope for a fruitful discussion,
Chistian
Jud:
As you are new Chistian, let me welcome you to the list. I together with the
other list members [I am sure] value your input and I will respond in as
helpful and generous a spirit as possible.
Cheers,
Jud Evans.
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
[email protected]_ (mailto:aeonpost@xxxxxxxxx) writes:
Judd, you wrote: "Please mention ONE PHILOSOPHER in the history of mankind
who doesn't thematise humanity against the background of their existing as
beings? A child could tell you that every damn human being on the planet can
only be related to or ontologically constituted as a topic of discourse if he or
she exists or existed in the past. If they have no being [if they do not
exist] then they can't be ANYTHING - they can't be talked about or ignored —
because there is/was no 'they' to be addressed. To thematise anything whether
it be animal, vegetable or mineral presupposes that they or it exists [or
existed at some time in the past]."
Chistian
Your comment shows a common and understandable misconception of what
Heideggers means, when he writes about the Being of a being (Sein eines Seienden).
Jud: [one 'd']
There is no: 'Being of Being' — it is a medieval myth based on the crude
notions of dualism they had in those monkish Harry-Potterish days.
Chistian [Sure it isn't Christian?]
Heideggers writing surely doesn't make understanding him easy and I myself
am not sure, to what degree he actually wanted to be understandable or cared
about being understood by others.
Jud:
Heidegger spent a lot of time revising his books both before publication and
together with his publisher. There is absolutely no evidence that he did no
care whether his writing was understood or not.
Chistian
But putting the language and especially the whole case of "Being in itself"
aside for a while (surely it somehow replaces the common concept of god,
which leaves us with the question though, if this alone already discredits it),
Jud:
YES, if it DOES replace the common concept of god then it DOES discredit it
and philosophy, and reduces it to the gutter-level of religion. Such a thing
would render it outside the bounds of serious philosophy and condemn it to the
ground floor of thinking, i. e., theology — which is the preserve of
pederastic priests, US 'born-again' presidents, and lying British Prime Ministers.
Chistain:
I would like to address his concept of "Being of a being", which seems to
hold some ground and shouldn't be cast aside so rashly.
Jud:
There is no "Being of a being," there is just the being experiencing the
process of being a being. But the "process" — the "experience" and the "Being"
don't exist - only the being. The so-called "Being of a being" doesn't exist
to be discussed, [although I make this concession of addressing the myth],
for just the being alone exists. Do you honestly believe that the actions of a
being are separate from the being? Does a person's activities of
stamp-collecting or flushing the toilet exist separately from his being a stamp-collector
or a toilet-flusher? That to my mind is totally childish and ridiculous.
Chistain
If Heideggers writes about the Being of Dasein, or the Being of any kind of
being, he doesn't mean their mere existence, but instead the way HOW this
kind of being is FOR US.
Jud:
'Dasein' doesn't exist other than as a figment of Heidegger's feverish
imagination. It is an abstract noun culled from a grammatical gerund [being there]
No kind of being 'has' a 'Being,' — it's utterly crazy to imagine such a
thing. We can wonder, speculate, predict, ponder, revue, how this experience of
life effected or effects or might in the future work out for us, but
'experience of life' doesn't exist any more than 'existence' exists — what exists is
'the experiencer' and the 'existent.' Heidegger's ideas are extremely vulgar
and crude and of an extremely low intellectual level, ill thought out,
juvenile and so out of date they need a cognitive health warning attached to them.
Chistain:
We and the other kinds of beings don't just exist, but we exist in a certain
way which comes from the way we perceive and interpret ourselves (Dasein)
and other things
(Zeug=things-at-hand, Andere=other human beings, Kunstwerke=pieces of art
etc.).
Jud:
Human beings are conscious of the world they live in — we don't need German
words with silly meaningless metaphysical imports to tell us that — and we
don't need a wacky construction like 'Dasein' to realise that we are humans
enjoying or suffering experiencing being there in the world. It is WE humans
that exist, NOT Heidegger's zany 'Dasein,' or the experience of the actuality of
us being present, materially constituted as human thinking animals.
Chistain:
Each category of beings is/exists in a way, that is shaped by certain rules
and forms of our understanding resp. the way we understand this specific type
of thing.
Jud:
Each entity in the world exists in the way that exists, NOT particularly in
the WAY or MANNER that we humans perceive of it as existing. Entities exist
in correspondence and conformity to the laws of nature, [physics] NOT by the
laws compiled by human beings as their way of understanding those entities. The
concept 'categories' is meaningful only to humans.
Chistain:
Just like Kant, Heidegger is interested in these rules and forms with the
difference, that Heidegger includes more in our understanding, than mere
synthetical or analytical thought. He means to include the underlying
"pre-cognitive" state of ourselves, which is not ruled by reason but still by
trancendental forms, that can be subject to transcendental analysis.
Jud:
'Transcendental analysis' is a laughable term which reflects the desperate
attempt to raise transcendentalism [crude beliefs on level with ignorant
jungle-dwellers] to a status comparable to respectable scientific observation and
analytical process. Such attempts can be likened to monkeys trying to compose
a Shakespearean drama.
Chistain:
Heidegger continues Kants work of a transcentental analysis of the rules of
our understanding process but with a much wider perspective than Kant. Kant
mainly thought of the way we perceive and construct external objects resp. the
external world - Heideggers tried to include, if not every aspect, then at
least many different aspects of our understanding of and acting in the world.
Jud:
That which is not guided by reason is unreasonable, and "unreasonable"
equals — absurd and inappropriate — inconsistent with reason or logic or common
sense according to my dictionary. This sums up freaks like Heidegger and his
dotty mentor [who he stabbed in the back] perfectly.
Chistain:
I agree with you, that Heideggers views are not as revolutionary and new, as
purported by many of his followers. I would like to add though, that
especially his ideas in "Being and Time", that deal with the transcendental
structure of our understanding and the world, are worth taking a close look at.
Jud:
I have 'taken a look at it' for the last 35 years and consider it the load
of old nonsense now in the same way I considered it a [dangerous] load of old
nonsense then. There is no: "transcendental structure of our understanding
and the world" There is US - and there is that which forms the parts of our
world. Airy-faery doctrines such as Heidegger's reinforce ignorance and
superstition in the west at a time when clear-thinking and analytic responses are
required. If the twin serpents of Transcendentalism and Christianity is not
strangled and stamped upon the west will be overcome.
Chistain:
And lastly let me express my disappointment about the type of language you
allow yourself to use.
Jud:
I don't ALLOW myself to do anything. There is no duality of authoritative
self over a compliant body, where an inner 'I' gives permissions for certain
actions. I use the language I do because the holism which is me [known to the
outside word as Jud Evans] WANTS TO. I am so used to being vilified by
transcendentalists that I have developed a natural combative style. I am not at all
like this on other lists — just The Heidyite ones. I mean no personal
discourtesy — my attacks are not aimed at you or anybody else on this list. My
foeman is the evil of Heideggerianism, not those naive youngsters and
unsophisticated older ones who have been captured by the ontological tricks of the wily
old Nazi Offizieller Komiker des Reiches Herr Martin Slybeggar.
Chistian:
I am new to this list, but I don't think, that I am the only one here or
anywhere else to deem such ways of discourse as being counter-productive and
over all not acceptable, even if they might be understandable from a
psychological point of view. Apart from this I still think, that it is very much worth
while and refreshing to talk to you. With hope for a fruitful discussion,
Chistian
Jud:
As you are new Chistian, let me welcome you to the list. I together with the
other list members [I am sure] value your input and I will respond in as
helpful and generous a spirit as possible.
Cheers,
Jud Evans.
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---