Hi Jud
Thanks for your comments. I will probably explore this further when someone on the list challenges this perspective.
BTW. I am not young or doing a philosophy course :). Nevertheless, I did study philosophy as a part of a psychotherapy course some time ago.
Regards
Edward.
----- Original Message ----- From: <GEVANS613@xxxxxxx>
To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: [heidegger-dialognet] Re: god gods not god but gods a god [god is not be-...
In a message dated 20/10/2004 12:55:00 GMT Standard Time,
[email protected]_ (mailto:ed7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) writes: Hi Jud wrote:
Jud: Note: Caps for emphasis only as usual.
For Heidegger *Being* is an ineffable X which allows, avails and facilitates
the *uncovering [appearance] of an entity. One could render it thus: * There
doesn't exist an X [*Being*] such that it doesn't exist as Jud's waterglass,
but doesn't exist as the *existence* of Jud's existing waterglass either. So
**Being* is nothing more than the activity of a person's brain as he or she
observes any object - just an old medieval term exhumed and revivified to
describe THE HUMAN ACT OF APPREHENSION. -- IN OTHER WORDS *BEING* IS NO MORE
THAN BEGINNER'S PSYCHOLOGY DRESSED UP AS *PHILOSOPHY*
Husserl was the ontological pathfinder who led the way, and Heidegger
followed and acquiesced that the *Being* [Meaning: *the *existence*] of all
entities [say the waterglass on my desk before me] lies in the sense we gain of them
in our understanding. This is an outrageous and juvenile ego-centric
transcendental subjectivism. In other words — the way I sense — the way I apprehend
the waterglass — with the sensors of my eyes as I regard it, and the sensors
of my epidermis as I lift it thus, is the *BEING* of the waterglass which
*allows* the water glass to *appear*
Edward:
This appears to me to be more or less correct (although I don't think
Heidegger would ever attribute anything to eyes, brain, skin etc). What Heidegger
does seem to be saying, to me, is that the waterglass is only intelligible as
a waterglass if Dasein exists (but all wrapped up in the most impenetrable
language).
Jud:
Perfectly correct Edward. But to say that the waterglass is only
intelligible as a waterglass if Dasein [humanity] exists to observe it is hardly
*philosophy.*
It is simply saying that if mankind didn't exist there would be no mankind
to observe anything and decide upon what it was.
Anyway it is not as simple as that, because Heidegger attributes the term
*Being* to this process of the human discerment of beings.
Edward:
"Of course only as long as Dasein is (that is, only as long as
understanding of Being is ontically possible), 'is there' Being.
Jud:
It follows then that *Being* [the existence of objects] only happens when
those objects which are regarded [observed and perceived] by humans are so
regarded. And the unregarded vast majority of unseen or unknown-about objects -
the billions of insects, animals, plants and trees hidden in the jungles of
our world are not a part of *Being,* because humans can't see them. We keep
them hidden from our eyes by neglecting to visit them and look upon them.
Therefore the mass of entities that we don't look at on the surface of our
world and in the depths of our seas and oceans, and the countless trillions of
stars and planets that populate our universe are not part of *Being* at all
- are not part of the *existence* of the cosmos, because *Being* and/or
*existence* only extends to entities which benefit from the *object-givenness* of
*being* as they are regarded/observed/perceived by mankind. Now answer me
honestly - is this not the craziest form of utter nonsensical crap you have
ever heard in your life?
BTW, You will never temp a real Heideggerian [the Jehovah's Witness
Berserker-type of Heidyite] out of the closet to defend his ontological inanities -
they just can't handle it. They usually resort to diversionary ad hom tactics
to either railroad the discussion, or terminate it completely.
An *Arsenic and Old Lace* refusal to comment tactic is also often employed,
whereby they remain in the daseinic dressing-room and regard the raddled
facial wreck of their ideas in a dressing-table mirror tricked out with lighting
designed to flatter. ;-)
Edward:
When Dasein does not exist, 'Independence' 'is' not either, nor 'is' the
in-itself. In such a case this sort of thing can be neither understood nor not
understood. In such a case even entities within-the-world can neither be
discovered nor lie hidden. In such a case it cannot be said that entities are, nor
can it be said that they are not." SUZ 212. Macquarrie 255).
Jud:
Hahahah! Well OF COURSE NOT you idiot Heidegger - if there are no human
beings to understand objects *understanding* is not an issue.
In such a case it cannot be said that entities are, nor can it be said that
they are not - because there would be no human mouths around to say ANYTHING
about ANYTHING - What a bleeding idiot Heidegger was!!!!
Edward:
Anyone like to comment on this for a relative beginner? Regards Edward.
Jud:
It is interesting and encouraging that you have recognised it for what it
really is at such a young age [or at such an early stage in your philosophical
career] it is most unusual and bodes well for your future career as a thinker,
if that is the path you choose to take. Be careful not to include this
analysis of mine/yours in ANY of your projects or papers - and DO NOT bring it
up at your tutorials. Keep it to yourself until you have passed their stupid
exams.
They will fail you - because to announce publicly that the Emperor has no
clothes is to expose them for the frauds they are, and reveal the pitiable
condition of the philosophy departments of our institutions of *higher*
learning, which propaganderise such rubbish. Continue cutting your way through the
gobbledegook - Flush them out - but wait until later!
Regards,
Jud
Personal Website:
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
E-mail Discussion List:
nominalism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--- 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 ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Thanks for your comments. I will probably explore this further when someone on the list challenges this perspective.
BTW. I am not young or doing a philosophy course :). Nevertheless, I did study philosophy as a part of a psychotherapy course some time ago.
Regards
Edward.
----- Original Message ----- From: <GEVANS613@xxxxxxx>
To: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: [heidegger-dialognet] Re: god gods not god but gods a god [god is not be-...
In a message dated 20/10/2004 12:55:00 GMT Standard Time,
[email protected]_ (mailto:ed7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) writes: Hi Jud wrote:
Jud: Note: Caps for emphasis only as usual.
For Heidegger *Being* is an ineffable X which allows, avails and facilitates
the *uncovering [appearance] of an entity. One could render it thus: * There
doesn't exist an X [*Being*] such that it doesn't exist as Jud's waterglass,
but doesn't exist as the *existence* of Jud's existing waterglass either. So
**Being* is nothing more than the activity of a person's brain as he or she
observes any object - just an old medieval term exhumed and revivified to
describe THE HUMAN ACT OF APPREHENSION. -- IN OTHER WORDS *BEING* IS NO MORE
THAN BEGINNER'S PSYCHOLOGY DRESSED UP AS *PHILOSOPHY*
Husserl was the ontological pathfinder who led the way, and Heidegger
followed and acquiesced that the *Being* [Meaning: *the *existence*] of all
entities [say the waterglass on my desk before me] lies in the sense we gain of them
in our understanding. This is an outrageous and juvenile ego-centric
transcendental subjectivism. In other words — the way I sense — the way I apprehend
the waterglass — with the sensors of my eyes as I regard it, and the sensors
of my epidermis as I lift it thus, is the *BEING* of the waterglass which
*allows* the water glass to *appear*
Edward:
This appears to me to be more or less correct (although I don't think
Heidegger would ever attribute anything to eyes, brain, skin etc). What Heidegger
does seem to be saying, to me, is that the waterglass is only intelligible as
a waterglass if Dasein exists (but all wrapped up in the most impenetrable
language).
Jud:
Perfectly correct Edward. But to say that the waterglass is only
intelligible as a waterglass if Dasein [humanity] exists to observe it is hardly
*philosophy.*
It is simply saying that if mankind didn't exist there would be no mankind
to observe anything and decide upon what it was.
Anyway it is not as simple as that, because Heidegger attributes the term
*Being* to this process of the human discerment of beings.
Edward:
"Of course only as long as Dasein is (that is, only as long as
understanding of Being is ontically possible), 'is there' Being.
Jud:
It follows then that *Being* [the existence of objects] only happens when
those objects which are regarded [observed and perceived] by humans are so
regarded. And the unregarded vast majority of unseen or unknown-about objects -
the billions of insects, animals, plants and trees hidden in the jungles of
our world are not a part of *Being,* because humans can't see them. We keep
them hidden from our eyes by neglecting to visit them and look upon them.
Therefore the mass of entities that we don't look at on the surface of our
world and in the depths of our seas and oceans, and the countless trillions of
stars and planets that populate our universe are not part of *Being* at all
- are not part of the *existence* of the cosmos, because *Being* and/or
*existence* only extends to entities which benefit from the *object-givenness* of
*being* as they are regarded/observed/perceived by mankind. Now answer me
honestly - is this not the craziest form of utter nonsensical crap you have
ever heard in your life?
BTW, You will never temp a real Heideggerian [the Jehovah's Witness
Berserker-type of Heidyite] out of the closet to defend his ontological inanities -
they just can't handle it. They usually resort to diversionary ad hom tactics
to either railroad the discussion, or terminate it completely.
An *Arsenic and Old Lace* refusal to comment tactic is also often employed,
whereby they remain in the daseinic dressing-room and regard the raddled
facial wreck of their ideas in a dressing-table mirror tricked out with lighting
designed to flatter. ;-)
Edward:
When Dasein does not exist, 'Independence' 'is' not either, nor 'is' the
in-itself. In such a case this sort of thing can be neither understood nor not
understood. In such a case even entities within-the-world can neither be
discovered nor lie hidden. In such a case it cannot be said that entities are, nor
can it be said that they are not." SUZ 212. Macquarrie 255).
Jud:
Hahahah! Well OF COURSE NOT you idiot Heidegger - if there are no human
beings to understand objects *understanding* is not an issue.
In such a case it cannot be said that entities are, nor can it be said that
they are not - because there would be no human mouths around to say ANYTHING
about ANYTHING - What a bleeding idiot Heidegger was!!!!
Edward:
Anyone like to comment on this for a relative beginner? Regards Edward.
Jud:
It is interesting and encouraging that you have recognised it for what it
really is at such a young age [or at such an early stage in your philosophical
career] it is most unusual and bodes well for your future career as a thinker,
if that is the path you choose to take. Be careful not to include this
analysis of mine/yours in ANY of your projects or papers - and DO NOT bring it
up at your tutorials. Keep it to yourself until you have passed their stupid
exams.
They will fail you - because to announce publicly that the Emperor has no
clothes is to expose them for the frauds they are, and reveal the pitiable
condition of the philosophy departments of our institutions of *higher*
learning, which propaganderise such rubbish. Continue cutting your way through the
gobbledegook - Flush them out - but wait until later!
Regards,
Jud
Personal Website:
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
E-mail Discussion List:
nominalism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--- 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 ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---