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:
Since you obviously refuse to consider this statement of mine in a serious way, let me explain, why it should be taken seriously by you and any nominalist for that matter.
I am very confident, that everybody (not only transcendentalists) would agree with me, that besides "matter and energy" (maybe we should better say "matter/energy", since they are just different aspects of the same thing) there are other things, that we ALL can a.) experience b.) understand and describe to others c.) agree upon their general existence d.) categorize etc. Examples would be: sensations like pain, sounds like speech, emotions like fear or guilt, actions/activity/"social behaviour" like violence, thinking or talking etc. pp.
Of course all these are created by biochemical reactions in our brain, but this doesn't say anything about their meaning for us and our society and their measurable effects on our "activity", resp. actions and behaviour.
In this respect they can be, and have to be, categorized and analysed in a philosophical discourse seeking truth or at least mutual agreement. In other words: they ?are?, resp. they ?exist?. If they are also ?real? in a strict and objective way, that is indeed disputable.
Also, apart from experience, there are other things, that ?are? and that we need to deal with seriously: concepts like quantity (in general), numbers, rules of logic, truth and reality. You too have to use these concepts and claim their existence (otherwise you wouldn?t be able to state, that certain things don?t exist).
These concepts exist, may they be ?real? or not, and absolutely have to be treated philosophically to understand and use them correctly.
Without the activity of thinking, guided by certain rules of speech and logic, and using these concepts, thus stating their existence, you wouldn?t even be able to claim, that all reality is matter/energy.
Christian
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
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:
Since you obviously refuse to consider this statement of mine in a serious way, let me explain, why it should be taken seriously by you and any nominalist for that matter.
I am very confident, that everybody (not only transcendentalists) would agree with me, that besides "matter and energy" (maybe we should better say "matter/energy", since they are just different aspects of the same thing) there are other things, that we ALL can a.) experience b.) understand and describe to others c.) agree upon their general existence d.) categorize etc. Examples would be: sensations like pain, sounds like speech, emotions like fear or guilt, actions/activity/"social behaviour" like violence, thinking or talking etc. pp.
Of course all these are created by biochemical reactions in our brain, but this doesn't say anything about their meaning for us and our society and their measurable effects on our "activity", resp. actions and behaviour.
In this respect they can be, and have to be, categorized and analysed in a philosophical discourse seeking truth or at least mutual agreement. In other words: they ?are?, resp. they ?exist?. If they are also ?real? in a strict and objective way, that is indeed disputable.
Also, apart from experience, there are other things, that ?are? and that we need to deal with seriously: concepts like quantity (in general), numbers, rules of logic, truth and reality. You too have to use these concepts and claim their existence (otherwise you wouldn?t be able to state, that certain things don?t exist).
These concepts exist, may they be ?real? or not, and absolutely have to be treated philosophically to understand and use them correctly.
Without the activity of thinking, guided by certain rules of speech and logic, and using these concepts, thus stating their existence, you wouldn?t even be able to claim, that all reality is matter/energy.
Christian
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---