/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14759003]

>If to Interpret the meaning of Being becomes our task, Dasein is not only the primary entity to be interrogated; it is also that entity which already comports itself, in its Being, towards what we are asking about when we ask this question. But in that case the question of Being is nothing other than the radicalization of an essential tendency-of-Being which belongs to Dasein itself-the pre-ontological understanding of Being.

[Anonymous No.14759012]

>>14759003
that actually makes sense to me now. whoah. i just ordered dreyfus’ book, can’t wait to read it

[Anonymous No.14759029]

>>14759003
Imagine being this much of a bullshit artist.

[Anonymous No.14759045]

>>14759029
It means that Dasein is the being that questions its own Being, basically.

[Anonymous No.14759055]

>>14759029
maybe you just don't understand what he is saying. im new to heidegger, have only read secondary material so i'll try to explain as best i can. it's actually not that complicated. "Dasein" is a being that is capable of wondering about Being (animals don't wonder about being, they just exist), like human beings for example, maybe also ayy lmao's. So Heidegger wants to wonder about Being, what the nature of Being is. He, as a being capable of wondering about Being, is a Dasein. In wondering about Being he is wondering about his own nature as a being capable of wondering about Being. He is just "radicalizing the tendency" of himself as a being capable of wondering about Being, like he's wondering about it to the second power, because he is wondering about his own nature as a being capable of wondering about Being at the same time that he is just concerned with the question of Being in general. When he says that Dasein is "pre-ontological" he means that he is engaged with Being in a non-philosophical sense. Ontology is the philosophical study of Being, but the Dasein is already engaged with Being in a more direct and pre-philosophical sense. That's how I understand what he is saying. It's pretty interesting to be honest.

[Anonymous No.14759075]

>>14759055
That is a good explanation.
It almost feels like he wants to approach Being in a ready-to-hand way rather than a present-at-hand way.

[Anonymous No.14759081]

>>14759075
>ready-to-hand way rather than a present-at-hand way
im not familiar with that distinction yet. ive heard it before, but i don't quite know what that is. im still new to heidegger.

[Anonymous No.14759087]

Is Heidegger anything more than self-help?

[Anonymous No.14759106]

>Being, as the basic theme of philosophy, is no class or genus of entities; yet it pertains to every entity. Its 'universality' is to be sought higher up. Being and the structure of Being lie beyond every entity and every possible character which an entity may possess. Being is the transcendens pure and simple. And the transcendence of Dasein's Being is distinctive in that it implies the possibility and the necessity of the most radical individuation. Every disclosure of Being as the transcendens is transcendental knowledge. Phenomenological truth (the disclosedness of Being) is veritas transcendentalis.

[Anonymous No.14759127]

>>14759106
>is no class or genus of entities; yet it pertains to every entity
sounds like the topological metaphor

[Anonymous No.14759212]

>imagine imagining One has escaped the onto-theological framework of the understanding.
The problem is Imagination in itself.
If one wishes to appreciate the cognizance of being, one must stop being. Ceasing-to-be does not necessitate not-being if one is able to dispense with the Imagination as the logical apparatus.

[Anonymous No.14759216]

>>14759212
What

[Anonymous No.14759217]

>>14759216
exactly

[Anonymous No.14759261]

>>14759217
no seriously, explain that to me. it almost sounds like an inverted version of a philosophy im developing. but im not sure because its hard to understand your post

[Anonymous No.14759273]

>>14759261
Read derrida

[Anonymous No.14759290]

>>14759273
maybe some day. i would actually like to since im a fellow based nafri jew. but for the time being, could you just explain what you mean?

[Anonymous No.14759301]

>>14759055
Meaningless babble.

[Anonymous No.14759316]

>>14759301
t. doesn't wonder about Being

sounds like you might be an animal, mate

[Anonymous No.14759341]

>>14759301
>t. Das Man

[Anonymous No.14759349]

>>14759045
Exactly. Its a very elegant answer in its way.

>>14759087
Yes.

[Anonymous No.14759392]

>>14759003
He is saying that humans already manifest a certain interpretation of Being in the ways in which they live in and think about and interact with the world. If you want to get an understanding of Being, just analyze the subtle ways in which humans of a certain culture exist and interpret the world around them, and this will tell you about their understanding of being. Then look at the ways people in different cultures from different periods of time existed and interpreted the world: how did they think, act, and feel in relation to Being? Once you've done this enough times, and seen enough variations and repetitions, compared and contrasted, you'll start to see a fundamental framework for how humans interpret Being: Heidegger calls this the existential analytic. Humans throughout history might have had a number of radically different interpretations of Being locally, but they all shared the same universal, fundamental structure of how a human can go about developing such an understanding (i.e. pre-ontological understanding). Much like how Kant lays out his categories that are the conditions of possibility for rationality, Heidegger lays out his categories that he sees as the conditions of possibility for developing an understanding of Being. So, in summary, you don't need to look "out there" to find out what Being is. You need to carefully analyze the interpretive structures in the human being that actually enable us to have an understanding of being, and you need to make these structures explicit.

[Anonymous No.14759415]

>>14759392
What's "Being" supposed to mean?

[Anonymous No.14759430]

>>14759392
It all sounds so vague and bullshitty.

[Anonymous No.14759442]

>>14759415
Good question.
>>14759430
You are just lazy.

[Anonymous No.14759443]

>>14759045
Not quite. If you replace being with mind in your synopsis you'd have Heidegger's critique of Hegel's phenomenology. Heidegger was well-aware of not falling into the same trap. Heidegger is more or less saying we need to abstract the implications of the innate condition of being to be aware of it's being. The question is: how do we ask the question what something is when that question is already answered as a part and parcel of that thing's (being in this case) very 'existence.'

[Anonymous No.14759448]

>>14759442
No, you are.

[Anonymous No.14759456]

>>14759443
Both Hegel and Heidegger wrote literal nonsense and tried to pass it off as philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14759482]

>>14759055
Okay, but what's the point of wondering about Being?

[Anonymous No.14759506]

>>14759482
we can’t help it. unless you’re a bugman, wondering about why anything exists at all is inevitable. you just kind of have to. it’s perplexing and man is a creature that likes to wonder about things and trying to figure things out

[Anonymous No.14759520]

>>14759506
What's a bugman?

[Anonymous No.14759524]

>>14759415
That's Heidegger's whole project. What is being. It's the fundamental question of metaphysics that he thinks has been glossed over by philosophy since especially the advent of the post-Socratics, so to speak (especially Aristotle), usually by just assuming that things are what exist then people get caught up into properties of thjngs and their distinction and relationship (what became known as ontology ironically in the middle ages). Heidegger ultimately doesnt find a satisfactory answer, and ends up in some twilight region of thought where being can only be alluded to or glimpsed in flashes through its affects or resonances in other phenomena.

[Anonymous No.14759529]

>>14759290
If I'm being honest, I wasn't posting in good faith. I was just trying to btfo Heidegger while sounding pithy and erudite. But in truth, I won't pretend to have a full grasp of Heidegger's project. You won't find much substance behind that post unless I think about what exactly it meant myself. It does feel like I was channeling some Derrida since I've been reading Of Grammatology off and on. And possibly this lecture I was listening to last night in bed pertains:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEHhbDCFRKk

There was a certain amount, that is, alot of irony in the post since it asks you to conceptualize oneself outside the "being/non-being division as a function of the imagination as inherently logical" i.e. asking one to imagine without imagining. Precisely this "imagine imagining" is the criticism of Heidegger, the being-as-being and the striving to escape the onto-theological structure of the preceding epoch of metaphysical systems while being encapsulated in it by the same tendency to system build and view or imagine reality as logical (being/non-being, A=A/A≠A). I think Heidegger understands this criticism though, and hence why his later philosophy is profoundly sentimental.

[Anonymous No.14759541]

>>14759524
To be is to be the value of a bound variable.

[Anonymous No.14759552]

>>14759520
a person who lives without any deep self-reflection, generally a mindless consumer or someone who uncritically accepts a worldview of materialist scientism

[Anonymous No.14759557]

>>14759529
could you further elaborate on the “imagination” part of your post. what has imagination got to do with it?

[Anonymous No.14759565]

>>14759524
There's a whole science devoted to the cataloguing of what exists. It's called Physics. I don't think Heidegger made any contributions in that regard.

[Anonymous No.14759567]

>>14759081
ready-to-hand is the unthinking manner of being when we are involved in tool use

present-at-hand is the intellectual, distant, treating things as objects consciously manner of being

[Anonymous No.14759570]

>>14759557
not anon but I think he means doing phenomenology.

[Anonymous No.14759586]

>>14759552
You have that backwards. Most people mindlessly accept a non-materialistic, non-scientific worldview, because they have been brainwashed since birth not to question the irrational dogmas promulgated by religious institutions, etc.

[Anonymous No.14759598]

>>14759586
it’s not backwards, both are two types of dogmatism that discourage self-reflection and wonder. both offer you a world that is already “fully explained”, more or less. religious bugmen and “scientistic” bugmen are both just two types of the same phenomenon

[Anonymous No.14759612]

>>14759055
So....
>all men by nature desire to know
?

[Anonymous No.14759613]

>>14759506
But Heidegger never figured out what "Being" is supposed to refer to. Thus, it's impossible to determine whether someone is "wondering" about it. Say you ask me whether I am wondering about Blargs. I ask you "What is a Blarg?" and you reply "I don't know". How am I supposed to answer the original question?

[Anonymous No.14759623]

>>14759456
Funnily enough by the end of his career Heidegger was writing poetic 'nonsense' as philosophy, as he though this was the only way to express his ideas. (He critiqued his use of terms in his early work as a ineffective attempt at explaining things.) And he was aware of it. For Kojeve, the stakes of Hegel are: we're either fully able to understand ourselves as of now or we never will be able to and live in a fundamentally irrational world, and its left for us to decide, I suppose. So the critique of them as nonsense isnt all that dismissive, since it's either the context or the stakes of either's philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14759625]

>>14759598
Nothing is ever "fully explained" in the scientific worldview. That's the difference. Scientifically-minded people understand that all knowledge is tentative.

[Anonymous No.14759636]

>>14759623
He never gave up terms completely though, as evidenced by his heavily edited copy of B&T that he gave to Dreyfus

[Anonymous No.14759654]

>>14759625
im not talking about science, im talking about scientism, so there isn’t a disagreement between us here

[Anonymous No.14759660]

>>14759613
babby’s first logical positivism. i hope you are cured of this autism one day, anon

[Anonymous No.14759682]

>>14759660
I never even mentioned "logical positivism", brainlet. Looks like you are the only autist in this conversation, anon.

[Anonymous No.14759686]

>>14759506
If history of ideas teaches us anything, it is that being (or Being, if you wish) needs to be experienced, not "wondered about". The ones who tried to understand it intellectually built some more or less complex systems of ideas about being, and then others built other systems of ideas, ad infinitum. Isn't it nauseatingly boring? The only reasons to learn it is so that you don't try to build your own system of ideas.

[Anonymous No.14759688]

>>14759557

That's a good question.
The discreteness that interfaces with reality?; Kant's transcendental unity, Hegel's self-conscious subject, a point or it's neighborhood, the pure image or whichever ever part of the PFC is responsible for imaging, the form of the dialectic or proposition as it is discerned in space-time?
I didn't have in mind a particular notion of Imagination when I made the post, it just began as a play on the form of:
>imagine doing A...
and I ended up incorporating it as a theme.

[Anonymous No.14759698]

>>14759524
>Heidegger ultimately doesnt find a satisfactory answer, and ends up in some twilight region of thought where being can only be alluded to or glimpsed in flashes through its affects or resonances in other phenomena.
So he ended up more or less with "live, laugh, love", right?

[Anonymous No.14759704]

>>14759682
He's referring to the fact you're trying to reify the concept of being as a propositional type in order to do logical inference on it.

[Anonymous No.14759710]

>>14759686
>If history of ideas teaches us anything, it is that being (or Being, if you wish) needs to be experienced, not "wondered about".
But Heidegger never even defined what "Being" is supposed to mean, so it is impossible to answer any question about it. For example, it is impossible to determine whether it can be "wondered about" or only "experienced".

[Anonymous No.14759714]

>>14759613
That's the point. You as Dasein have a pre-ontologic understanding of Being. You know what Being is since you talk about it everyday when you say that something is, like when you say "The sky is blue". You have a sense of what that "is" means, but if I asked you to define what it means to me, to tell me what does it mean "to be", what is that "is", you wouldn't know exactly what to say, how to define it. But you still know what it is. That's what Heidegger tries to do. To define that "is".

[Anonymous No.14759720]

>>14759710
>But Heidegger never even defined what "Being" is supposed to mean
He did define it, in B&T.

[Anonymous No.14759725]

>>14759704
Wow, you misused four different terms in a single nonsensical sentence. Quite an achievement.

[Anonymous No.14759739]

>>14759714
Doesn't this problem disappear with languages where the verb "is" in unnessary? In Russian it would be just "нeбo cинee" - literally "sky blue", with "blue" in the grammatical form showing that the subject is of neutral gender and in the singular.

[Anonymous No.14759745]

>>14759720
No he didn't, he only wanted to show the right way of approaching the definition, as opposed to the centuries of misunderstandings we've had up to this point

[Anonymous No.14759747]

>>14759714
>you wouldn't know exactly what to say, how to define it.
Wrong. To be is to be the value of a bound variable. F's "exist" iff ∃xFx.

[Anonymous No.14759749]

>>14759725
No, I did not. You want a description of Being that is a list of attributes and logical conditions-i.e. a propositional type, from which you can make infinite tokens of little Beings and then do your gay little analytic buggery on each of them.

[Anonymous No.14759753]

>>14759316
Best insult

[Anonymous No.14759755]

>>14759749
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.14759762]

>>14759714
It really boils down to the question of what a relation between an object and its attribute is. And both of these are just language features.

[Anonymous No.14759764]

>>14759755
"no, you're wrong" is not a valid counter argument, smooth brain

[Anonymous No.14759771]

>>14759739
It's not about the verb itself. It's not just language. I used language as an example. Even if you don't speak it, you still imply it. So when you say in Russian "нeбo cинee" - "sky blue" what you really say or what you really mean or what you really imply is that there IS a sky that IS blue, even if you don't say it, you think it as such.

[Anonymous No.14759777]

>>14759764
Moron, you just broke the local record for the greatest number of misused logical terms in a single sentence. Fall back before you further embarrass yourself.

[Anonymous No.14759787]

>>14759565
>There's a whole science devoted to the cataloguing of what exists. It's called Physics. I don't think Heidegger made any contributions in that regard.

I would post basedboy wojak, but would that really accomplish anything?

[Anonymous No.14759789]

>>14759777
>doesn't explain a single of these supposed misuses
You aren't fooling anyone :^)

[Anonymous No.14759791]

>>14759714
>like when you say "The sky is blue"
You are confusing the "is" of predication with the "is" of existence.

[Anonymous No.14759800]

>It's called Physics. I don't think Heidegger made any contributions in that regard.

[Anonymous No.14759804]

>>14759787
It would certainly be a accurate self-illustration in your case.

[Anonymous No.14759806]

>>14759762
It's not entierly about language. When you talk about something you don't only talk about an abstract thing or a concept, you talk about beings, you don't talk just about an abstract cat when you say "the cat is on the table", you might talk about a real, ontic cat that is on a real, ontic table.

[Anonymous No.14759812]

>>14759762
>relation between an object and its attribute is
Again, that's predication not existence.

[Anonymous No.14759820]

>>14759791
>>14759771
Okay, so Heidegger asks this really weird question about what being is, spends a shitload of pages trying to answer it, and fails. And autists continue discussing this question. Sounds like some weird sort of OCD to me.

[Anonymous No.14759855]

It's fascinating how Heideggerfags are literally clueless about the most basic elements of philosophy. They don't even possess the vocabulary to describe simple concepts like predication, identity, reification, etc.

[Anonymous No.14759860]

>>14759081
It's hilarious how many new terms are coined because people are unaware of existing vocabulary in scientific fields

[Anonymous No.14759866]

This thread is dogshit

[Anonymous No.14759867]

>>14759860
the concepts do not exist elsewhere. Heidegger invented them to get rid of the baggage of existing terms. You are the ignorant one.

[Anonymous No.14759872]

>>14759806
From the practical point of view, there's just no need to ask questions about the cat's being. And if I go into the philosophical depths, it first gets all murky, and after that the image of a cat gradually transforms into an image of a fat smug Scotsman in a red coat dabbing on a German who looks like he's got really bad constipation.

[Anonymous No.14759877]

>>14759855
analytic philosophy is not the be-all and end-all of the matter, retard bong

[Anonymous No.14759878]

>>14759867
If you introduce new terms, you need to define them.

[Anonymous No.14759880]

>>14759855
This has never not been the case in philosophy, for every philosopher—Plato in Theatetus talks about the disciples of Heraclitus, who simply spout off aphorisms like arrows, without showing any understanding.

The curse of philosophy is that it cannot be understood without devoting oneself to it.

I will say: don't believe Heidegger to be an obscurantist simply due to the stupidity of the Heideggarians.

[Anonymous No.14759883]

>>14759878
>>14759567
read much?

[Anonymous No.14759884]

>>14759878
Nah. You have to do some thinking about this.

[Anonymous No.14759894]

>>14759855
>simple concepts like predication, identity, reification, etc
i-is there a book one could read that will explain those concepts? asking for a friend

[Anonymous No.14759896]

>>14759884
OK, I'm introducing two new terms -- 'Foo' and 'Bar'. I'm not going to define them for you. Now tell me whether Foo is Bar. Go.

[Anonymous No.14759909]

>>14759860
A big problem with your way of looking at things is that you see "reification" as if it is simply the way things are—but this term is itself a space of philosophical controversy.

You haven't given any arguments for nominalism with respect to universals, but I think you are going to have to if you are going to try to claim that "reification" is even a real thing.

[Anonymous No.14759918]

>>14759791
>>14759812
I would say that for Heidegger this doesn't matter. Maybe I didn't use the best examples. Allow me to explain. The relation of IS to other things doesn't matter. When I ask what is Being I don't ask about a being (lowercase). I don't care if it is identic with something, if it identifes something as another thing or if it belongs to a class of things. What I care about is what do I mean when I say something exists, something IS. The problem you mention appears when you approach sentences like "My cousin is a Christian" thinking that this is a IS of predication because you consider the predicate to be "is a Christian". For Heidegger the "a Christian" part doesn't matter, only the IS.

>>14759820
It's in consitution of the Dasein to ask about Being.
Check this at 10:14. Listen to his answer.
https://youtu.be/XcsBtl1SwuY

[Anonymous No.14759923]

>>14759896
I'm not even the anon you're talking to but anyone claiming that Heidegger doesn't define his terms or somehow doesn't even have to (fucking what?) is just talking out their ass. Take "being-in-the-world"; he spends like 100 pages building his definition for this term, covering every component concept. I don't know why it seems like every defender of Heidegger in this thread is hell bent on doing the worst job they possibly can.

[Anonymous No.14759926]

>>14759894
'Metaphysics' by Michael J. Loux is a decent introduction to the subject. Or the SEP: https://plato.stanford.edu/

[Anonymous No.14759928]

>>14759896
Nah. You have to do some thinking about the difference between technical language and our everyday language use.

[Anonymous No.14759930]

>>14759923
Actually I take that back

>>14759918
This dude is doing an admirable job, good quality posts and knows what he is talking about

[Anonymous No.14759959]

>>14759930
nobody cares about your critique, homo.
If you know him so well why don't you make a counter argument

[Anonymous No.14759964]

>>14759926
thank you, fren

[Anonymous No.14759969]

>OK, I'm introducing two new terms -- 'Foo' and 'Bar'. I'm not going to define them for you. Now tell me whether Foo is Bar. Go.

[Anonymous No.14759973]

>>14759918
>For Heidegger the "a Christian" part doesn't matter, only the IS.
That doesn't make any sense. The sentence "Every invisible cat is female" does not entail the existence of invisible cats. The "is" is the simple copula of predication.

[Anonymous No.14759987]

>>14759959
A counter to what? All I've said so far is that anyone defending Heidegger by saying that his terms are somehow above definitions isn't really defending Heidegger, nor do they understand him. Does this apply to you? If so, do better. If not, not your problem.

[Anonymous No.14759989]

>>14759973
>this is your brain on logpoz

[Anonymous No.14759993]

>>14759973
Not the anon you are responding to, but have you read Heidegger? I know you are a busy person, but you seem to be a bright enough chap—why don't you read him, convict him as an obscurantist, and publish your results in the Philosophical Quarterly?

[Anonymous No.14760001]

>>14759969
>posts textbook logical positivist arguments
>NOOOOOOO YOU CAN’T CALL ME A LOGICAL POSTIVIST, I NEVER USED THE TERM “LOGICAL POSITIVIST

[Anonymous No.14760005]

>>14759993
Already done multiple times by multiple people. No current philosopher takes him seriously.

[Anonymous No.14760009]

>>14759987
I was one of the few that attempted to give definitions but then you all just bitched about it like talking fannies

[Anonymous No.14760014]

>>14760005
>No current philosopher takes him seriously.
are you retarded??

[Anonymous No.14760025]

>>14760009
It's pseudointellectual conman's oldest trick. Whenever someone tries to criticize your ideas, just say "no, you misunderstand - that's not what I meant". Just keep everything vague and slippery and you'll never be refuted.

[Anonymous No.14760033]

>>14760014
I went to a top 3 graduate school in Philosophy. Did you?

[Anonymous No.14760036]

>>14760009
Which posts are yours? I caught at least one anon who was doing a decent job, maybe I mistook one of yours for his.

[Anonymous No.14760042]

>>14760033
i have a 200+ IQ and have communed directly with every philosopher from the past while traveling in the astral realm. Have you?

[Anonymous No.14760055]

>>14760036
I'm the one posting basedjak

[Anonymous No.14760064]

>>14760005
>Already done multiple times by multiple people. No current philosopher takes him seriously.

That's quite strange!

Because in a poll of English speaking philosophers, done in 1999 by Douglas P Lackey and published in the Philosophical Forum, "Being and Time" is considered to be second most important book of the twentieth century, behind Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations"

I have even attached it in an image.

I am SHOCKED that no current philosopher takes him seriously then, although I am sure that you are much wiser than I am, so must be right.

[Anonymous No.14760065]

>>14760055
You're doing a great job representing Heideggerfags.

[Anonymous No.14760066]

>>14760055
I'm not going to say you're helping anyone understand but its funny so whatever, feels good to dunk on Russellian nerds

[Anonymous No.14760073]

>>14760064
That poll obviously included people in faggy low-ranked 'continental' departments.

[Anonymous No.14760082]

>>14760066
As if such idiocy is anything but self-defeating.

[Anonymous No.14760091]

>>14760073
Ah yes!

So your point of view is that no serious philosopher takes Heidegger seriously, and by serious philosopher you mean "people who don't like faggy continental philosophers."

Thank you for making yourself clear!

[Anonymous No.14760096]

>>14760091
No prob.

[Anonymous No.14760104]

>>14760091
Behold, the power of analytic reasoning!

[Anonymous No.14760114]

>>14760091
To be fair, continental 'philosophy' isn't really philosophy. It's more of a species of bullshit artistry, like nonsense verse. See some of the posts in this thread for examples.

[Anonymous No.14760136]

>>14759973
That's wher Heidegger goes in a different direction. That IS for him it's not just a copula. And you're example is perfectly right. The sentence "Every invisible cat is female" does not entail existence of invisible cats you still use that is like invisible cats would exist. I take you are an analytic so consider your sentence in this way
∀x, x∈IC ∧ x∈F
You would say, as Russell (he used the example of the King of France being bald I think), that that sentence is actually to sentences: for any x, x belongs into the class of invisible clats (IC) AND x belongs to the class females(F). And you say that the sentence is flase because the first sentence (x∈IC) is false and if you have a false sentence in a conjuction with another, the conjuction turns false. However let's take a closer look at that first sentence. When you say for any x, x∈IC is false, you kinda I couldn't find any x that belongs to that class, however in a very subtle manner you imply that there are such x objects or that they might be, bout you can only conclude their existence only after you value the sentence. I'm not sure If I'm very clear, English is not my first language. What I'm trying to say is that you first have a sense, if you like, of that being existing and you test it against a certain condition and when you say it doesn't exist, however you talk about as something that exists until proven otherwise. Why? I'm not saying that Heidegger answers this question, but he tries to show us what exactly is that subtle sense that we have about things existing.
Sorry, if this is a very unreadeable post.

[Anonymous No.14760138]

>To be fair, continental 'philosophy' isn't really philosophy

[Anonymous No.14760145]

>>14760136
shouldn't it be x ∈ IC -> x∈ F ?

[Anonymous No.14760173]

>>14760114
You have to think a little more about this anon.

Of course there is a ton of bullshit passing for "continental philosophy".

But I want you to know that thinking that it is ALL bullshit, is an ideology.

In fact, it is an ideology begun propped up and propagated by the US university system during the cold war, oddly enough, because it was believed that continental philosophy was tied to Marxism and Nazism. (see the article "Entrenched, A Genealogy of the Analytic Continental Divide" for a useful, though somewhat partisan overview)

Now the cold war is over, but the ideology remains and it will lead you astray so long as you believe it: you will cut yourself off from genuine wisdom.

That which is of genuine value in continental philosophy is something that you will have to discover for yourself, if you want to. It might free you from certain fixed ideas, if you are open to it.

That is just my view though. Take it or leave it.

[Anonymous No.14760188]

>>14760136
>∀x, x∈IC ∧ x∈F
No, the correct translation is ∀x ((Cx & Ix) Fx)

>for any x, x belongs into the class of invisible clats (IC) AND x belongs to the class females(F).
No, see above.

>And you say that the sentence is flase because the first sentence (x∈IC) is false
No, the conditional is true since the antecedent conjunction is false for every substitution of 'x'.

[Anonymous No.14760190]

>>14760145
I don't know, anon. I might have done it wrong.
I was thinking about Russell's example with the King of France.
The King of France is bald.
∃x, x ∈ KF ∧ x∈B
But in the cat example we have a universal quantifier and I think that changes things. Hmm, I really don't know.

[Anonymous No.14760196]

>>14760188
>No, the correct translation is ∀x ((Cx & Ix) --> Fx)
Fixed. Apparently the arrow symbol is not supported on this board.

[Anonymous No.14760210]

>>14759541
>To be is to be
try again retard

[Anonymous No.14760217]

>>14759003
so he is just german Kierkegaard?

[Anonymous No.14760223]

>>14760217
He was influenced a lot by Kierkegaard yes. Arguably his three greatest influences are Nietzsche, Husserl and Kierkegaard.

[Anonymous No.14760226]

>>14760188
>∀x ((Cx & Ix) Fx)
I think you might be right about it, but I'm not sure.

>No, the conditional is true since the antecedent conjunction is false for every substitution of 'x'.
But that is exactly the point. You are acting like there is a substition for x in the first place. You say there is something, a being x, do those functions return a true value for this x? Well, no so x doesn't exist. But what is that x in its state of being, before you substitute it in your equation?

[Anonymous No.14760227]

>>14760190
>The King of France is bald.
That sentence is used to illustrate the problem of nonreferring definite descriptions. That's different from the invisible cats example, which is a much more straightforward case of a universally quantified conditional where the antecedent is false.

>∃x, x ∈ KF ∧ x∈B
It's a little more complicated than that. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definite_description

[Anonymous No.14760234]

>>14760210
>Confusing the "is" of predication with the "is" of existence YET AGAIN
wew lad... you're on a roll.

[Anonymous No.14760262]

>>14760227
>It's a little more complicated than that. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definite_description
Yes. I agree.

>>14760227
But my point as stated previously is more related to... hmm... the quantifiers I guess. Let's take the existence quantifier. What do you mean when you say ∃x? What is ∃x?

[Anonymous No.14760275]

>>14760226
No, every substitution for 'x' refers to an existing object. The reason the antecedent is false is because none of those substitutions are invisible cats.

>But what is that x in its state of being, before you substitute it in your equation?
The 'x' acts like a pronoun. The sentence says, take any existing thing and ask of it: is it an invisible cat? If so, then it must be female for the sentence to be true. Now, because there are no invisible cats, that first condition always fails, so you never even get to checking whether it's female, and the sentence is true by default.

[Anonymous No.14760281]

>>14760234
>confusing
nice try retard

[Anonymous No.14760291]

>>14760275
I think what anon is trying to say is, by the time you get to a successful substitution, you already have an 'existing' cat, so you never directly query its existence. You're only really looking at its properties.

[Anonymous No.14760294]

>>14760275
>take any existing thing and ask of it
>existing
That's what I'm getting at, anon. You already have understanding of existence before you checked existence of something through predicate logic. What is an existing thing? What does it mean to be existing? What does it mean to be?

[Anonymous No.14760297]

>>14760291
I think this anon might say what I mean in a more elegant way. Thanks!

[Anonymous No.14760306]

>>14760262
The existential quantifier is used when you want to say that at least one thing has a certain property, without specifying the name of the thing. "There is some food in the refrigerator" for example. Existence is not a first-order property of things.

[Anonymous No.14760319]

>>14760291
Everything you are substituting by definition exists. Not sure what "directly query its existence" means. If it didn't exist, you couldn't examine it.

[Anonymous No.14760332]

>>14760319
Yes, that is exactly the point. Logic can only deal with things that exist, it cannot deal with the properties of existence itself.

[Anonymous No.14760360]

>>14760319
>by definition exists
What is that definition, anon? How do you define that a thing exists?
Thing of it like this anon. You take having proprieties as functions. So you take things from the domain of existence and if your functions return true or false you might have something to put in your codomain or not. However, what does it mean to be in that domain of existence in the first place?

[Anonymous No.14760367]

>>14760294
Existence is an implication of Truth, in the following sense. Take the set of propositions you hold to be literally true, and derive its existential consequences. The result is your ontological commitments. In other words, what exists, for you, are the things that must exist for the propositions you believe in to be true.

[Anonymous No.14760390]

>>14760360
>what does it mean to be in that domain of existence in the first place
The specifics depend on your metaphysical outlook. For materialists, "existing" might mean being spatio-temporally localizable, or possessing energy. For idealists, some other criterion. Etc.

[Anonymous No.14760427]

>>14760332
Thank you, anon, for presenting my points more clearly.
>>14760367
You see, anon, now things get blurry since you introduced Truth as something necessary for existence. I think some problems might arise, I don't know. As for ontological commitments, Quine
seems like a very interesting philosopher which hopefully I would read some day.
I would love to debate more, but I have to go now fortunately. I truly enjoyed this thread and hope we can do it again sometime. I recommend to everyone in this thread to read Heidegger, even to the skeptical analytics we had here. :)

[Anonymous No.14760441]

>>14760427
>Quine seems like a very interesting philosopher which hopefully I would read some day
I basically gave Quine's view of existence in that post. See his short paper "On What There Is" for details:
http://www.uvm.edu/~lderosse/courses/metaph/OnWhatThereIs.pdf

[Anonymous No.14760553]

>>14759301
>doesn't have an internal world

[Anonymous No.14760588]

>>14759003
Ich weiß viel, ich denke viel, ich esse viel. Langt das?

[Anonymous No.14761304]

>>14759612
Not exactly, because Dasein's "comporting itself to its being" is not a cognitive relation, but a relationship of "concern with what is most immediately significant" in a precognitive sense. He means capturing Dasein's "average everydayness" instead a detached and reflective "desire to know", which is a valid mode of Being for Dasein, but not its most "basic". When you go about daily tasks, you don't approach them in a detached and methodical way like a scientist would, for instance.

[Anonymous No.14761329]

>>14761304 (cont.)
Which is why it is somewhat misleading to say that "Dasein is defined as the being which questions/wonders about its Being" because that statement characterizes Dasein as the "rational animal" in the traditional sense. This is precisely what Heidegger wanted to avoid when he wanted to restate the question of Being in terms of Dasein.

[Anonymous No.14762297]

>>14759301
this

[Anonymous No.14762316]

>>14759290
What comes before the question of the meaning of Being?

[Anonymous No.14762326]

>>14759430
this

[Anonymous No.14762348]

>>14759430
You're reading someone's interpretation and likely they're not a philosopher or trained in academic philosophy. Something that is otherwise rigorous, with fixed definitions of terms, fixed uses for those terms, etc. isn't as bullshitty when someone's unchecked presuppositions leak into the work of a philosopher.

If you want Heidegger, read Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.14762368]

>>14759127
Didn't think gizers came to /lit uwu. Indeed, it does.

>>14759880
>don't believe Heidegger to be an obscurantist simply due to the stupidity of the Heideggarians.
The mental gymnastics of Gallic-Heideggerians at the contents of the Black Books was the beginning of turning me round on that note.

[Anonymous No.14762619]

>>14762368
>gizers
are you an actual paying member? I was thinking of it, but it seems to be mainly current events focused, and I'm more interested in the philosophical side of farrell's work

[Anonymous No.14763620]

>>14759855
because heidegger's philosophy is peak cringe & onions