-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens
GEVANS613@xxxxxxx
Verzonden: woensdag 27 oktober 2004 21:19
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: GEVANS613@xxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Re: Eisegesis or Anagoges of Truth
In a message dated 27/10/2004 17:15:44 GMT Standard Time,
R.B.M.deBakker@xxxxxx writes:
Jud wrote among other words ("...[]..." are the other words):
"...it absolves the observer from any ontological responsibility..."
Even here in the library-technology one has 'ontologies' now, though
no responsibility. One cannot oppose the fact that we *are*
ontologically. Ontologies re-enter via the technological backdoor.
The equipment is doing the ontology, once we refuse what was once started.
Nature itself has become a huge information container. And intelligence
spying.
I encountered again this passage in Nietzsche 1, 'Wtp as knowledge', first
paragraph, ending: "The unambiguous refusal of all philosophy is an attitude
always deserving respect; for it contains more of philosophy than it knows
itself."
Jud:
Yes fine but for every transcendental mumpsimus there is a nominalistic
sumpsimus.
I do not respect anyone who rejects all philosophy. Having said that there
are more sorts of philosophy
than you imagine. Many *ordinary* folk have philosophical attitudes that are
akin to the notions of certain
philosophers, though they themselves have never even heard of those
philosophers.
There is much *home-spun* philosophy that one can encounter over a pint of
cider in a village pub.
First this bit, Jud. - (Are you a Jute?)
That might be, but I think that Heidegger means by philosophy metaphysics,
of which the nihilist core comes out after more than 2000 years. (Compare
the incubation time of the principle of reason) It's indeed a strange thing
that the cider-sipping citizen, who minds his own business, is not independent
from this metaphysical 'happening', it at least can't be brought closer by
historical causal reasoning. Your insistence on concrete things and persons
cuts you off from the domain of metaphysical history, which is also your
room to move. Take Plato. In no way can be explained how precisely the
historical Plato influenced Western philosophy. Reducing what the name 'Plato'
stands for, to an historical actual person, makes one lose philosophical
history on beforehand. You don't want to know about this 'on beforehand', the
'always already', but that can only dissolve the fast-shrinking reality that is
still left in this proces. But you probably deny 'proces' too. At the end of
your post can be seen what you're left with and what you have to offer to us:
what exists exists. p implies p. Thank you for nothing. Maybe MichaelP can still
link you to Herakleitos, i only see unwill and negativism. Don't take this as
ad hominem, because i treat you like Plato and Nietzsche: we only count insofar
we're thinking or refuse thinking. The refusal of thinking being more
philosophical than it can think itself, because it contains the nihilist cancer,
that also tyrannically forbids the passage to new ways of thinking, and treats
them like thugs and terrorists.
regards, good cure and best wishes ad hominem Jud
rene
Jud:
I am willing to state publicly that any object in the cosmos exists in the
way it exists.
How do I know? because if it didn't - it wouldn't exist at all.
if p then p
if not-p, then not-p
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---