In a message dated 16/07/2004 13:45:59 GMT Standard Time,
[email protected]_ (mailto:aeonpost@xxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
Christian.
I just have some general remarks to make about the last few postings under
this thread. They may just state the obvious, but I'll make them anyways.
Philosophy is not about repeating certain statements again and again, but
instead about a constructive dialogue.
Jud:
It is precisely the Heddegerian mindless repetition of certain statements
that I find irritating too — the calling of names like "troll," to people who
challenge the transcendentalist/religious dualism's, by certain people who
parrot the words of others, seemingly incapable of ever producing A SINGLE
meaningful idea of their own is something I have had to suffer since I first
joined this thist years ago. As it is "par for the course" - it is like water off
a duck's back. If the person numbered amongst those I respect on this list
- it would be different. Where that is not the case, as in this instance,
his words have about as much meaning and practicality as pissing into the
wind - it will come back to him eventually. In any case, I don't consider
"Heideggerianism" or "Phenomenology " to be "Philosophy" at all. For me it
represents a ragbag of medievalist notions transmogrified into a mid-twentieth
century Germanic jargon characterised by a strong "faith," or strong belief in a
supernatural power or powers, and the desirability of a subjected population
and a national hegemony led by the strong [willed]. And who was it that
promulgated this ancient anti-intellectualism? Why - a little man with a
Hitler-mustach who shamelessly confessed to being an acolyte of possibly the
wickedest and most inhuman human being that the world has ever seen - Adolf Hitler.
This Samurian-type skin-head attitude for me is too crude to merit the
designation "philosophy," anymore than the strong belief or faith of the New
Guinean highlanders, that some God who dwells in the mists of Mount Pipikata tears
off the heads of wrongdoers and consumes them. For the Melanesians - the
mountain Kukukukus of New Guinea, there are special ghosts like those of beheaded
men, whose wounds glow in the dark. There are also the spirits which are
doubles of living men. Is believing these things more primitive than the belief
in an invisible "Being" which is present, but not substantially present in
actuality, or a daseinic construct in jackboots goosestepping down the
corridors of shame, fouling the glorious traditions of our institutions of higher
learning?
Christian.
It should be common sense and knowledge that, if you don't respect other
people and their opinion, you'll end up talking only to yourself. And, Jud, this
is very much, what you have been exercising in this particular thread as well
as on many other occasions on this list.
Jud:
I am well aware that fact and I am under no illusions that the other people
that you refer to are well beyond any advisory help, lost as they are in
their fanaticism. I am not particularly bothered if nobody ever answers my posts.
In any case, most of answers I receive are vituperative onslaughts by
admirers of the Philosopher of Nazism anyway, so their remarks, or lack of them,
are of no great loss to me, the list or to the world. What I do hope for, [and
in a sense this is my raison d'être for bothering to stay on the list] is to
act as an enjoiner [warner] for any young person or beginning philosopher who
unwittingly wanders onto this list oblivious of the dangers of the nest of
anti-liberal, religious, shamelessly transcendentalist, antidemocratic ideas
to which they will sometimes inadvertently expose themselves. My presence here
is in the nature a balancing force, pointing to the underlying dangers and
evils of the cult. How successful I have been in these endeavours I will never
know [though some have written and thanked me for what I do] It satisfies me
to feel that I am at least doing something — however small — to combat this
evil in our midst, which has infested our educational establishments and
clamped its fangs of philosophical fantasy on the academic artery responsible
for re-oxygenation western thought.
Christian
What Michael, and now myself, ask you for, is a serious discussion and
analysis of the other's argument. This is or should be the core of all
philosophical activity. Mere statements like "x is not an argument" or "x doesn't exist"
neither explain your own position, nor where the other one's argument is at
fault. Also they don't show much maturity of one's own thought. Of course
concrete analysis and weiging of arguments is tedious and tiring work, but
nonetheless necessary for EVERY discussion.
Jud:
There can be no "serious discussion" of another's argument between a person
of faith, [in "God," or "Being," or "The State" — take your pick of Faiths]
the only way that the unbeliever can be dealt with is to attack him personally
as happens on this list. Historically unbelievers became victims of various
inquisitions and were burnt, drowned, crucified, tortured to death, etc.,
recently they ended up in the Gulag, Heidegger's camps, Pol Pot's mass graves,
etc. More recently they fly aircraft into buildings packed with unbelievers and
kill them that way. Faith upon faith equals death — faith upon unfaith
equals death. There is no escape from this fact — open any history book or modern
newspaper and read all about it for yourself. There cannot be a civilised
ivory tower type discussion with faith such as you describe above of the X is
not an argument or "X doesn't exist" variety, and if you had try that tack with
the Christian Right of America, or the Catholic monsters of the Inquisition,
or Stalin's henchmen or Heidegger's Nazi murderers where precisely do you
think that would have got the unbeliever? A quicker death? More probably a
lingering one supervised by the ghoulish transcendentalist [phenomenologist]
torturers. Remember - a phenomenologist is somebody that blanks out, suppresses,
brackets out in Hussar's euphemistic term objective reality. The dehumanised
unbeliever then becomes "a thing" an "object" to be treated in any way
thought to be efficacious for the state, the church, the movement — and most
disgusting of all in Heidegger's case - THE PHILOSOPHY.
Christian
So, since you obviously read some works of phenomenologists, why can't you
actually cite one of them, give a brief account of his position and then
analyse and confute him directly with arguments rather than with dogmatic
statements.
Jud:
I do so occasionally, but for the unbeliever it is well nigh impossible.
Why? Because it involves accepting the faith of the transcendentalist at face
value. We could talk about what is in the bible, and how the various warring
religions have interpreted its contents from now until eternity, but that does
not change the basic fact that for the unbeliever THERE IS NO GOD.
Subsequently, any attempt at analysis and confutation is impossible, for the belief in
God or Being is an article of FAITH and NOT reason, and it follows that any
argument promulgated by the believer would be UNREASONABLE. Any argument
based upon or grounded in unreason and blind dogma rather than analysis and
reason is doomed before it begins. For God and Being there can be no "analysis" of
which you speak — for the believer God and Being are real — for the
unbeliever they are not. In that sense there is no difference between two people
standing in a field and one saying: There is a tree in the corner," and the
other saying: "No - there is no tree." What analysis" is possible in those
circumstances?
Christian.
P. S. Our "activity", as you put it, is subject to philosophical analysis as
well as, if not even more than, the question of reality, may this activity
"exist" or not.
Jud:
The brain activity and social behaviour of phenomenologists [you may choose
to call it "mental activity"] is definitely worth analysis and study from a
sociological and political point of view. People who choose to ignore reality
are the greatest danger to the survival of the human race. Unfortunately REAL
philosophy has chosen to ignore the crudity of the transcendentalist threat
as being beneath comment. I believe this to be a great error, so in that sense
I am in complete agreement with you.
Christian
P. P. S. Eminently undogmatic philosophical positions like phenomenology,
existenzialism or post-modernism don't pose a threat to anybody but the
dogmatic.
Jud
Phenomenology, existentialism, religion and postmodernism in the sense that
it undermines reason is thuggery in velvet gloves.
Christian
It seems to me, that your kind of dogmatism is just as crippling and over
all much more dangerous for humanity and it's existence, than any religious
dogmatism could ever be.
Jud:
It is the believers that do the killing — not the unbelievers. What I think
is only dangerous to those sections of humanity who think, [for you did say:
"It seems to me,"] like you do. If you consciously take the decision to
ally yourself with a defence of the indefensible — that is your decision to make.
In ending I ask you to seriously consider this important question.
Do you think it sensible at a time when the whole of western society is
under threat from the forces of a resurgant religious medievalism intent of
supressing the basic freedoms that we ejoy, [or may not enjoy - the bad as well
as the good aspects of our society,] that phenomenoligists, [i.e., those who
preach the supression of pragmatic objectivity] and nihilistic no-hopers -
the Heideggerians, should be allowed to continue to work - like philosophical
fifth-columnists -within the very bosum of the state and educational
power-houses of our society? Should the taxpayers of the free world pay for their
own demise by allowing the ongoing infection of our youth with the
debilitative and enervating western version of the very ideas that drive our enemies in
their crusade of religious destruction and domination of the "infidel?"
Cheers,
Jud.
--- 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@xxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
Christian.
I just have some general remarks to make about the last few postings under
this thread. They may just state the obvious, but I'll make them anyways.
Philosophy is not about repeating certain statements again and again, but
instead about a constructive dialogue.
Jud:
It is precisely the Heddegerian mindless repetition of certain statements
that I find irritating too — the calling of names like "troll," to people who
challenge the transcendentalist/religious dualism's, by certain people who
parrot the words of others, seemingly incapable of ever producing A SINGLE
meaningful idea of their own is something I have had to suffer since I first
joined this thist years ago. As it is "par for the course" - it is like water off
a duck's back. If the person numbered amongst those I respect on this list
- it would be different. Where that is not the case, as in this instance,
his words have about as much meaning and practicality as pissing into the
wind - it will come back to him eventually. In any case, I don't consider
"Heideggerianism" or "Phenomenology " to be "Philosophy" at all. For me it
represents a ragbag of medievalist notions transmogrified into a mid-twentieth
century Germanic jargon characterised by a strong "faith," or strong belief in a
supernatural power or powers, and the desirability of a subjected population
and a national hegemony led by the strong [willed]. And who was it that
promulgated this ancient anti-intellectualism? Why - a little man with a
Hitler-mustach who shamelessly confessed to being an acolyte of possibly the
wickedest and most inhuman human being that the world has ever seen - Adolf Hitler.
This Samurian-type skin-head attitude for me is too crude to merit the
designation "philosophy," anymore than the strong belief or faith of the New
Guinean highlanders, that some God who dwells in the mists of Mount Pipikata tears
off the heads of wrongdoers and consumes them. For the Melanesians - the
mountain Kukukukus of New Guinea, there are special ghosts like those of beheaded
men, whose wounds glow in the dark. There are also the spirits which are
doubles of living men. Is believing these things more primitive than the belief
in an invisible "Being" which is present, but not substantially present in
actuality, or a daseinic construct in jackboots goosestepping down the
corridors of shame, fouling the glorious traditions of our institutions of higher
learning?
Christian.
It should be common sense and knowledge that, if you don't respect other
people and their opinion, you'll end up talking only to yourself. And, Jud, this
is very much, what you have been exercising in this particular thread as well
as on many other occasions on this list.
Jud:
I am well aware that fact and I am under no illusions that the other people
that you refer to are well beyond any advisory help, lost as they are in
their fanaticism. I am not particularly bothered if nobody ever answers my posts.
In any case, most of answers I receive are vituperative onslaughts by
admirers of the Philosopher of Nazism anyway, so their remarks, or lack of them,
are of no great loss to me, the list or to the world. What I do hope for, [and
in a sense this is my raison d'être for bothering to stay on the list] is to
act as an enjoiner [warner] for any young person or beginning philosopher who
unwittingly wanders onto this list oblivious of the dangers of the nest of
anti-liberal, religious, shamelessly transcendentalist, antidemocratic ideas
to which they will sometimes inadvertently expose themselves. My presence here
is in the nature a balancing force, pointing to the underlying dangers and
evils of the cult. How successful I have been in these endeavours I will never
know [though some have written and thanked me for what I do] It satisfies me
to feel that I am at least doing something — however small — to combat this
evil in our midst, which has infested our educational establishments and
clamped its fangs of philosophical fantasy on the academic artery responsible
for re-oxygenation western thought.
Christian
What Michael, and now myself, ask you for, is a serious discussion and
analysis of the other's argument. This is or should be the core of all
philosophical activity. Mere statements like "x is not an argument" or "x doesn't exist"
neither explain your own position, nor where the other one's argument is at
fault. Also they don't show much maturity of one's own thought. Of course
concrete analysis and weiging of arguments is tedious and tiring work, but
nonetheless necessary for EVERY discussion.
Jud:
There can be no "serious discussion" of another's argument between a person
of faith, [in "God," or "Being," or "The State" — take your pick of Faiths]
the only way that the unbeliever can be dealt with is to attack him personally
as happens on this list. Historically unbelievers became victims of various
inquisitions and were burnt, drowned, crucified, tortured to death, etc.,
recently they ended up in the Gulag, Heidegger's camps, Pol Pot's mass graves,
etc. More recently they fly aircraft into buildings packed with unbelievers and
kill them that way. Faith upon faith equals death — faith upon unfaith
equals death. There is no escape from this fact — open any history book or modern
newspaper and read all about it for yourself. There cannot be a civilised
ivory tower type discussion with faith such as you describe above of the X is
not an argument or "X doesn't exist" variety, and if you had try that tack with
the Christian Right of America, or the Catholic monsters of the Inquisition,
or Stalin's henchmen or Heidegger's Nazi murderers where precisely do you
think that would have got the unbeliever? A quicker death? More probably a
lingering one supervised by the ghoulish transcendentalist [phenomenologist]
torturers. Remember - a phenomenologist is somebody that blanks out, suppresses,
brackets out in Hussar's euphemistic term objective reality. The dehumanised
unbeliever then becomes "a thing" an "object" to be treated in any way
thought to be efficacious for the state, the church, the movement — and most
disgusting of all in Heidegger's case - THE PHILOSOPHY.
Christian
So, since you obviously read some works of phenomenologists, why can't you
actually cite one of them, give a brief account of his position and then
analyse and confute him directly with arguments rather than with dogmatic
statements.
Jud:
I do so occasionally, but for the unbeliever it is well nigh impossible.
Why? Because it involves accepting the faith of the transcendentalist at face
value. We could talk about what is in the bible, and how the various warring
religions have interpreted its contents from now until eternity, but that does
not change the basic fact that for the unbeliever THERE IS NO GOD.
Subsequently, any attempt at analysis and confutation is impossible, for the belief in
God or Being is an article of FAITH and NOT reason, and it follows that any
argument promulgated by the believer would be UNREASONABLE. Any argument
based upon or grounded in unreason and blind dogma rather than analysis and
reason is doomed before it begins. For God and Being there can be no "analysis" of
which you speak — for the believer God and Being are real — for the
unbeliever they are not. In that sense there is no difference between two people
standing in a field and one saying: There is a tree in the corner," and the
other saying: "No - there is no tree." What analysis" is possible in those
circumstances?
Christian.
P. S. Our "activity", as you put it, is subject to philosophical analysis as
well as, if not even more than, the question of reality, may this activity
"exist" or not.
Jud:
The brain activity and social behaviour of phenomenologists [you may choose
to call it "mental activity"] is definitely worth analysis and study from a
sociological and political point of view. People who choose to ignore reality
are the greatest danger to the survival of the human race. Unfortunately REAL
philosophy has chosen to ignore the crudity of the transcendentalist threat
as being beneath comment. I believe this to be a great error, so in that sense
I am in complete agreement with you.
Christian
P. P. S. Eminently undogmatic philosophical positions like phenomenology,
existenzialism or post-modernism don't pose a threat to anybody but the
dogmatic.
Jud
Phenomenology, existentialism, religion and postmodernism in the sense that
it undermines reason is thuggery in velvet gloves.
Christian
It seems to me, that your kind of dogmatism is just as crippling and over
all much more dangerous for humanity and it's existence, than any religious
dogmatism could ever be.
Jud:
It is the believers that do the killing — not the unbelievers. What I think
is only dangerous to those sections of humanity who think, [for you did say:
"It seems to me,"] like you do. If you consciously take the decision to
ally yourself with a defence of the indefensible — that is your decision to make.
In ending I ask you to seriously consider this important question.
Do you think it sensible at a time when the whole of western society is
under threat from the forces of a resurgant religious medievalism intent of
supressing the basic freedoms that we ejoy, [or may not enjoy - the bad as well
as the good aspects of our society,] that phenomenoligists, [i.e., those who
preach the supression of pragmatic objectivity] and nihilistic no-hopers -
the Heideggerians, should be allowed to continue to work - like philosophical
fifth-columnists -within the very bosum of the state and educational
power-houses of our society? Should the taxpayers of the free world pay for their
own demise by allowing the ongoing infection of our youth with the
debilitative and enervating western version of the very ideas that drive our enemies in
their crusade of religious destruction and domination of the "infidel?"
Cheers,
Jud.
--- 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 ---