Hi Jud,
sometimes i find it difficult to follow your line of agrument. My
whole point is that tautologies of whatever kind can and will have
no epistemic import on materialist ontologies of whatever kind,
because materialists only gain knowledge of natural necessity by
testing hypotheses based on empirical arguments obtained via the
processes of induction, deduction or retroduction.
For a materialist it is nonsense to say "matter exists as matter" or
"energy exists as energy", these are empty phrases, even employed
in didactical settings [my students would laugh their pants off when
i would claim that 'circles exists as circles' or that 'an integer exists
as an integer' or that 'the number pi exists as the number pi'].
But maybe you can give me some meaningful examples of how a
(nominalist) materialist would use tautologies in his thinking ?
You wrote:
>I am not *just* a materialist* - I am a nominalistic materialist.
>There are big differences between the two.
Can you say what the big differences are between the two ?
>For me the [whole] human holism derives its meaning from any
>given source of information - not just one of its five sensors.
What other sources of information do you mean here, given the fact
that you claim that there exist only matter/energy in the cosmos ?
>A materialist [and I can only speak for my own nominalist materialism]
>does not require *constant* revalidation and verification of *truths*
>which he has provisionally accepted - that would be too onerous
>and time-consuming.
How can something (a human activity) be "time-consuming" if you
claim that time doesn't exist ?
>All that the Daseinic approach to *Being* does is to mask these
>>individuate variations of instantiated *Being* into a featureless
>universal aggregation of conflicting instantiations (cue the
>Hottentot's ugly-beauteous behind) - in other words a jumble of
>conflicting instantiational abstract nonsense.
All you say is that Being is a highly conflictuous, deeply contested
and most obscure concept: Heidegger never said otherwise.
>The statement: *An entity exists in the way it exists* is employed
>didactically to illustrate that in spite of the fact that a European or
>American might describe a female Hottentot's buttocks as being
>repulsive or grotesque - the Hottentot man believes that they exist
>as objects of lascivious beauty.
Of course i'm not denying the idea that beauty is relative to culture,
but the statement "a female Hottentot's buttocks exists as an object
of lascivious beauty" is not a tautology, it is a description of male
Hottentot preferences; the statement "a female Hottentot's buttocks
exists as a female Hottentot's buttocks", that would be a tautology.
>You may be interested in reading a page on my website concerning
>this very question. It also mentions the possibility that the word
>YHWH may mean *Being* [etymologically]
Maybe you can post some of the relevant parts to the list?
>It is refreshing to have a grown-up conversation for a change as a
>respite from the slanderous juvenilia from other quarters.
I'll keep trying Jud, i'll keep trying ...
yours,
Jan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
sometimes i find it difficult to follow your line of agrument. My
whole point is that tautologies of whatever kind can and will have
no epistemic import on materialist ontologies of whatever kind,
because materialists only gain knowledge of natural necessity by
testing hypotheses based on empirical arguments obtained via the
processes of induction, deduction or retroduction.
For a materialist it is nonsense to say "matter exists as matter" or
"energy exists as energy", these are empty phrases, even employed
in didactical settings [my students would laugh their pants off when
i would claim that 'circles exists as circles' or that 'an integer exists
as an integer' or that 'the number pi exists as the number pi'].
But maybe you can give me some meaningful examples of how a
(nominalist) materialist would use tautologies in his thinking ?
You wrote:
>I am not *just* a materialist* - I am a nominalistic materialist.
>There are big differences between the two.
Can you say what the big differences are between the two ?
>For me the [whole] human holism derives its meaning from any
>given source of information - not just one of its five sensors.
What other sources of information do you mean here, given the fact
that you claim that there exist only matter/energy in the cosmos ?
>A materialist [and I can only speak for my own nominalist materialism]
>does not require *constant* revalidation and verification of *truths*
>which he has provisionally accepted - that would be too onerous
>and time-consuming.
How can something (a human activity) be "time-consuming" if you
claim that time doesn't exist ?
>All that the Daseinic approach to *Being* does is to mask these
>>individuate variations of instantiated *Being* into a featureless
>universal aggregation of conflicting instantiations (cue the
>Hottentot's ugly-beauteous behind) - in other words a jumble of
>conflicting instantiational abstract nonsense.
All you say is that Being is a highly conflictuous, deeply contested
and most obscure concept: Heidegger never said otherwise.
>The statement: *An entity exists in the way it exists* is employed
>didactically to illustrate that in spite of the fact that a European or
>American might describe a female Hottentot's buttocks as being
>repulsive or grotesque - the Hottentot man believes that they exist
>as objects of lascivious beauty.
Of course i'm not denying the idea that beauty is relative to culture,
but the statement "a female Hottentot's buttocks exists as an object
of lascivious beauty" is not a tautology, it is a description of male
Hottentot preferences; the statement "a female Hottentot's buttocks
exists as a female Hottentot's buttocks", that would be a tautology.
>You may be interested in reading a page on my website concerning
>this very question. It also mentions the possibility that the word
>YHWH may mean *Being* [etymologically]
Maybe you can post some of the relevant parts to the list?
>It is refreshing to have a grown-up conversation for a change as a
>respite from the slanderous juvenilia from other quarters.
I'll keep trying Jud, i'll keep trying ...
yours,
Jan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---