Ask a modern scientist a genuinely metaphysical question and he will immediately try to turn it into a scientific problem. Heidegger's essay, What Is Metaphysics ?, properly understood, debunks the arrogance of modern science. Do these modern monkeys actually believe that they have "overcome" philosophy ? They depend on its teachings even now.
... even arriving at questions which are actually of any importance. Institutions such as universities are a positive hindrance. They pay lip-service to "free-thinking" but they are in truth groups of cowards and dunderheads who lack any individuality or originality. Modern science is the "religion of commonsense". It loves to obscure the true questions by presenting its own pseudo-questions and assuming an air of authority which it does not really possess.
How do people watch documentaries like these ? The BBC is a legendary institution. Documentaries which seek to "sell" a particular point of view are pretty pathetic and will never stand stand the test of time. The BBC has always been almost revered worldwide precisely because it has always veered away from this tendency. But is this an impartial portrait of Heidegger ? I don't think so. And where in the documentary is there any discussion of his thought ?
How many times does it need to be repeated ? "He who thinks great thoughts often makes great errors" is a statement made by Heidegger which has NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS. It has to do with the riddlesome and treacherous nature of Being, which is what Heidegger is ALWAYS talking about. He is not at all talking about godforsaken "politics". He is talking about how Being itself can lead astray (metaphysically) even the most honest inquiry, because it is intrinsically so elusive and ambiguous.
@zarakhast Heiddeger like any scientist of Intrinsic Anthropology was attempting to define the underlying principles in human nature' which has everything to do with Socialism and the politics surrounded around social science economic' what is the intent of any self education' look around the country' arewe being controlled byothers illicit acts of ignorance? Socialism breeds Authoritarian dictatorship ingov. Fascism tocontrol rather than sharing any true Authority of knowledge within education
@DrFruedienslip Its the same thing Einstein was saying in regards to Quantum Mechanics and defining reality with his theory of relativity' what does anyone know about reality but what grasp within the many impressions'
@DrFruedienslip He wasn't a mere anthropologist, he was a philosopher. Being comes first, human being comes second. This is "logical". A human being, in order to ground his point of view honestly, first needs to transcend his mere humanity and ask about Being. Luckily enough this ability has already been granted to him by Being - obviously, since everything has already been granted to everything by Being in advance. To be anything something must first BE something. It really is SO easy.
@zarakhast Its hard to be a being when we are being controlled by outside influences which dont make sense like aworld view' in memorialization by the doctrines within the media' its a long subject' but still we are one thing connected to one means in our survival' controlled by greed
The biggest influence on our being beings is the prevailing interpretation of Being, which we all inevitably "live" by. And this has always been propagated by a philosopher of some sort, whether we realise it or not, and whether or not this individual (or group) can be identified. Today, philosophy is dead. "Science" rules. But "science" is nothing but the elaboration (quite boring) of an inferior metaphysical point of view. "Science" is NOT thinking. Thinking is something quite different.
@zarakhast Philosophical interpretation goes hand in hand within defining a metaphysical language to explain any aspect to conscious observations' it is within the impressions where observations can become obscured and lead to memorializations which influence the mind' the concern within humanity is within finding a common language which is what Georg Gadamer was expressing as well as Einstien' within the metaphysics to QM' but it is simply what we know' or actually how we know within reason
@ThePhilosorpheus Thank you, Its difficult to imagine just how much anyone truly knows, for instance how much can anyone express within words any and all things of any and all experiences, and also questions what has driven any and all past and present philosophers; even the word philosophy is a questionable noun. Seemingly any philosophic exemplification would be related to defining any and all common experiences which is anything metaphysical within which to establish any mainstay....ect
@DrFruedienslip Any intent within exemplifying anything Quantum Mechanical would have everything to do within having a mainstay within any regards within exemplifying any and all intelligence' Intelligence itself would then be considered anything absolute and irrefutible within any and all sciences including heatlh concerns, and especially anthing social; example: Intrinsic Anthropology has been expanding within any and all technologies which demand any sense within any sensewithin anyconstrual.
@zarakhast Couldn´t agree more. Curious how it became impossible to discuss with scientists, curious how discoveries which could have profound implications concerning some of the deepest philosophical issues, concerning fundamental human values, are overlooked, depending on whether or not it serves as means to build a new faster computer. I´m no communist, but that scientist´s arrogance goes hand in hand with the industrialist way of thinking is undeniable.
@ThePhilosorpheus Scientists now have a monopoly on "cleverness". They are the most impressive people alive today. They are not RIGHT of course (they haven't got a clue in fact), but they have all the "best arguments" (even though these these arguments are, in actual fact, shit). They have decided that they already know what "reality" is and what "being" means. These are not important questions for them : they are not questions at all. And so, arseholes that they are, they rule our world.
@zarakhast Indeed. They all reduce the functioning of the world to their own perspective. Just the other day I saw a video about one of Google´s top software programmer, who also worked at NASA, talking about quantum mechanics. His conclusion was basically that our perception of reality is probably false (the old philosophical problem of realism/idealism) and why?.. Because in his perspective we´re very much like softwares programmed to perceive the world the way we do. Ridiculous.
@ThePhilosorpheus This is exactly why Heidegger's question concerning Nothing is so important now. It is not a question which a community can unanimously decide, unless each member of that community goes away and asks that question by himself, to himself. But it is unlikely in the extreme that this will happen, so I'm afraid we're stuck with scientists and their stupid questions and answers. You truly need to be an independently-minded type to have any hope of ....
@zarakhast I agree, yet I think nothingness is a question which a community can unanimously decide. Each one of us understands the question differently and it has a particular value for each one of us, but in answering that question to ourselves what is the deciding factor? Reason? A leap of faith? Intuition? - if it is reason, there is a normative sense to that answer, for it implies logic, therefore a common "decision". Plus, I don´t believe a coherent society is possible without this decision
'Only the scientist or the politician (e.g. Tony Blair) is bothered about his place in "history"'. Not true at all. The religious get recognition from their god and therefore need it less from their society. At the end of history the religious have a place. The "professional philosopher" seeks to publicize his thinking and seeks to make converts of his students in part for fame and glory.
Humans aren't rational, but they are habitual rationalizers. You're an example.
"Ressentiment is an elevated, metaphysical concept" That's like calling "the desire for recognition" (from The Phenomenology of Spirit) an "elevated ..." No. I encounter both all the time even in myself.
"But you also have to be extremely stupid and incautious to assume that death is 'the end'". Expand on this. Heidegger never addressed this question.
Ressentiment is an elevated, metaphysical concept. It has nothing to do with anything as petty as the ego. Only the scientist or the politician (e.g. Tony Blair) is bothered about his place in "history" or his "IQ". When you die your IQ becomes 0. Your "reputation" is annihilated, along with you. You have to be extremely stupid to imagine otherwise. But you also have to be extremely stupid and incautious to assume that death is "the end" (in the sense that you just "go to sleep").
@MrEnver2 There is no spirit. Death is the end of life. But take some comfort. I was dead billions of years before i was born and i didn't have the slightest problem with it.
@martinheideggershut ...you, you, you! How should reading read this? Wasn't Heidegger the finger pointing beyond subject/objectivism? If "you" thinks "you" don't - then niether/nor. Movement is dying to move past this thisness (and this is not "just" poetry, but closer to what is than "what" is). Advice advises that leaving leaves "them" alone and you and I move over and before ourselves to let Human Being be. Besides, let-be...isn't that the way (the Tao?) that gets out of the way?
"But you are completely in the dark about Heidegger's thought"
No. You hold to your "understanding" of Heidegger out of resentment. You resent those who are intellectually and morally suerior to you. You don't even understand what Nietzsche meant by resentment.
"areas originally demarcated with far more care and depth by philosophy - and employed in essence a uniform methodology to deal with everything"
"social science" is 100% bull shit, but what more effective method would you suggest natural scientists use? As a matter of fact natural science has no method. Whatever works is what scientists use.
People like Richard Dawkins are idiots, of course, but so are liberal arts types who comment on things they don't have any clue about. Ressentiment for sure.
@martinheideggershut Dawkins is an idiot, you are right about that : a shallow, superficial Pied Piper if ever there was one. But you are completely in the dark about Heidegger's thought. "Ressentiment", by the way, is Nietzsche's word for the attitude taken towards eternity (as perpetual becoming) by those who cannot accept it. It is a negative attitude towards eternity. It has nothing to do with a feeling of not being as "clever" as one's fellow man.
You're confusing what scientists "think" when and if they think, the scientific worldview, and what scientists do. Science, what scientists do, is work. Even theoretical physics amounts to nothing if it makes no testable claims, and theorizing is a very small part of science. My background in science is synthetic organic chemistry---making molecules.
To repeat : the quote at the beginning of this documentary , "He who thinks great thoughts often makes great errors" has been plucked out of its original context here and used miscievously to insinuate something very different from what Heidegger meant when he uttered those words.
With these words Heidegger was saying something eternally true about the precarious position of the philosopher - NOT with regard to his "conduct" but with regard to the treacherous nature of Being.
The question of the meaning of Being is the leading question not only of philosophy but of thinking as such. The question which grants us access to an understanding of the tenor of this question is the fundamental question of metaphysics : Why is there something and not nothing ?
Science turns everything - including consciousness - into an ob-ject (something which stands over against me, the observer - whether the observer be the senses or the mind). But the genuine reality is not an object at all, it is an INNER reality and can NEVER be re-presented. The Tao says this so clearly and so succinctly already. Heidegger attempts to show Western thought the error of its ways in his essay on the subject of das Nichts (Nothing).
"Science turns everything - including consciousness - into an ob-ject" Like I said the metaphysical foundations of science are only aproblem when scientists investigate things that are outside their purview.
The metaphysical foundation of science still governs science when it is investigating things which lie WITHIN its "purview" (and what doesn't lie within its purview, except nothing ?) Metaphysics, as fundamental to knowledge as such, ought to be acknowledged and incorporated by science as basic and necessary. It is not as if metaphysics is important only when we are discussing specifically metaphysical questions. Without a fundamentally unifying principle all thinking becomes disordered.
@martinheideggershut Nothing except nothing lies within the "purview" of science - this is precisely what makes science seem so convincing to ordinary understanding. Science has usurped control of every area of knowledge - areas originally demarcated with far more care and depth by philosophy - and employed in essence a uniform methodology to deal with everything. This is all thanks (and I mean that sarcastically) to such thinkers as Hume, who presumptuously and wrongly dismissed metaphysics.
If there are indeed laws of reason then metaphysics seeks to ground these too. Even the laws of reason are something. It may be the case that the ground of reason is unreason and that the ground of law is un-law (freedom, chaos). This may even be absolutely necessary and therefore logical. It careless and thoughtless to assume any "laws of reason" in advance - even after these have been authoritatively pronounced by a thinker. Even Aristotle, as a philosopher, would have agreed with this.
Philosophy is metaphysics, science is (at bottom) physics. Metaphysics involves the thinker's whole being, not merely his intellect. It is thoughtless to assume without question that everything conforms to the laws of reason, since reason no less than anything else is something and ALL things fall into question in metaphysical inquiry.
@martinheideggershut Inasmuch as "theoretically" here means the same as "in principle" then all science is fundamentally physics. But what follows from this ? A homogenization of all scientific thinking and of everything which science inquires into ? So that even the soul becomes explicable in terms of the laws of physics ? What dire consequences might such a viewpoint lead to ?
But the foundation of physics is itself meta-physical.
Philosophy is not a specialism. It is all-embracing. It is the only inquiry which actually makes the attempt to get the totality of beings in view in one go. It does so logically by moving from the general to the particular, with a view to comprehending the particular by means of the general (universal).
To claim that a philosopher ought not to speculate on the cosmos is like saying that a baker ought not to speculate on baking.
The universe is by definition ONE. There cannot be multiple universes. If there were multiple "universes" then these "universes" collectively would be the universe.
It is not very difficult to understand why something which is expanding must be expanding into something else. The universe is already everything. Therefore it cannot be expanding.
"Cosmology" in the modern scientific sense of the word is illogical piffle.
@martinheideggershut What you seem to want to say is that the universe is expanding but that it is expanding into nothing. Otherwise I cannot understand what you intend when you say that "there is no into". But if it is expanding into nothing then it is clearly not expanding is it ??? Please expand ....
Suppose space were infinite, had only three dimensions, and was Euclidean. Then suppose it is filled with an infinite number of galaxies and that these galaxies are all becoming more and more distant from one another. There is no contradiction here and in this case a cosmologist would describe the universe as expanding even though it is always infinite. It's the galaxies' rushing away from one another that is meant by expansion.
The original question being, Why is there anything (at all) rather than nothing ?
And we necessarily start with nothing and ask : how could it ever "be" ? And then we ask ourselves what we mean here by "being" ? We are asking how (or indeed IF) it could continue (remain) if it ever once could be. And the answer is NO. For if it continued it would not be nothing, for it would be time - and time is not nothing.
Eventually cosmologists hope to show that either this universe is one of many possible universes Or that this universe is somehow the only possible universe. Obviously they are a very long way away from that. They'll tell you.
The universe (as everything) is not expanding - it's a metaphysical given. If you can't even get this far then you may as well not bother at all.
But the question as to why the universe should be existing at all rather than not existing is far from having been answered by some facile piece if "logic". We still stand in astonishment at the inexplicable fact that anything exists at all. We have no explanation. And so we examine the original question more carefully ....
You can't claim that the universe is expanding and then casually add that there is no "into". What do you mean by this ? Do you mean that it is not expanding into anything ? Well then it is expanding into nothing, which means that it is not expanding, because in that case there would be nothing for it to expand into. Or do you wish to do away with the preposition "into" ? What exactly do you mean when you say that there is "no into" ?
To all the silly little modernist subjectivist metaphysicians leaving posts about Heidegger: To interpret Heidegger as Heideggerian is like interpreting Mathematics as Mathematicianist (Erdos?) All the subjects posting and then defending their subjectivist metaphysics here only proves how little of the speech spoke with-in Heidegger was heard. Here-hear???
Philosophy is a priori. It depends on ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. It has NO starting point. It makes NO assumptions. Its proper subject matter is NOTHING. It cannot be taught. It is not a "technique". It is, from the mundane point of view which is today universally represented by "science", like "magic". And yet it is far more rigorous, far more "logical" than science, precisely because it is not a slave to mere "reason".
If we have to confront the question concerning nothing - and we surely do, since this is where all serious thinking inevitably winds up - how can we even begin ? Do we start with a "principle", e.g. "reason" ? But wouldn't to do so be to evade the question already ? If I ask why there is anything and not nothing I also ask why there is reason. So to base the inquiry on the principle of reason is already unreasonable and unprincipled. Reason somehow has to transcend itself.
If the universe can't be expanding (which is obviously the case and is possibly the easiest piece of reasoning EVER) and scientists still believe that it IS expanding then scientists are ipso facto MORONS. I don't think this can be denied - except by a moron. We don't need to produce any "evidence" here. What a set of blockheads scientists are really !
And since the universe cannot be expanding the Big Bang theory is clearly a non-starter. Yet we read of nothing else. Scientists actually, wholeheartedly believe in something which is NOT EVEN POSSIBLE !
And yet we hear (from scientists) that the average IQ of the scientist is higher than that of the poor, humble philosopher !
So to make such a thoroughly embarrassing mistake is intelligent is it ? Is it really intelligent to entertain an idea which isn't even possible ?
Scratch that. I did say it. But you chose to misrepresent it.
"The idea that the universe can be expanding depends on a notion of the universe which excludes space" is correct. For it could only be expanding into space. What else could it be expanding into ?
But since the universe already includes space then any such notion is not a notion of the universe.
The universe is not expanding because it can't be. And that really ought to be good enough for all you moronic scientists.
@martinheideggershut If there is expansion then there must also be an "into". But you clearly have something recondite in mind. It might help if you tried to say what it is.
@martinheideggershut Why don't you name yourself after a thinker who you actually understand ? If there's one thing that's worse than outright opposition to Heidegger's thought it is people who masquerade as his supporters who, however, haven't got a clue what he's talking about.
I think Rorty misses the point, because one could say Heidegger was critical of "the liberal project" particularly strong in the US, also Britain and to some extent France. To me Heidegger is simply reminding us of another way of doing philosophy that got buried away. It would be a false dilemma to state that philosophy critical of liberalism equals Hitler.
@martinheideggershut Huh ? Who are you quoting now ? I never said that you dastardly individual !
The universe is everything and therefore also space. But in order for it to expand (i.e. if this were actually possible) it would HAVE to be expanding into space. But since it already includes space then this is obviously not possible. There is nothing for it to expand into, since it is already everything. Do you agree ? Are you satisfied ? Is this a test of MY comprehension rather than yours ?
@martinheideggershut Well come on then clever clogs, what could it be expanding into if not space ?
Could it be expanding into nothing ? Clearly not. And since it is everything (including space) and all there is apart from it is nothing then it is not expanding.
@martinheideggershut For your information (though I don't know why I'm bothering to tell you this) I studied Philosophy with Classical Civilisation at Warwick University in the early nineties and in order to qualify I studied maths as part of an access course - and did very well thank you.
In any case I'm intrigued to know why you seem to believe that a background in maths and physics is necessary in order to study philosophy. It isn't.
"In any case I'm intrigued to know why you seem to believe that a background in maths and physics is necessary in order to study philosophy. It isn't."
Of course it isn't. But it would help you to understand why there needn't be an "into".
@martinheideggershut Explain to me how something can be expanding but not "into" anything. And if something is expanding into nothing then in what sense is it expanding ?
It's difficult to explain in ordinary language. A cosmologist would describe the universe as a self-contained topological space, a topological space which is not embedded in a larger topological space. When the space is stretched and everything in it is more distant from everything else this is what is meant by expansion.
"and can be expanding only if it is expanding into nothing"
There is no "into". Space needn't be Euclidean, and if it is Euclidean there is no "into" either, because if space is Euclidean it is infinite and the matter in it infinite.
"Therefore it is also included in the question when we ask why there is not nothing."
Scientists and most traditional metaphysicians just do not "get" Heidegger at all. This is because they are TOO "rational".
Reason is also nothing. Therefore it is also included in the question when we ask why there is not nothing. We ask a question which is so comprehensive that it goes beyond even reason. The "rational" point of view turns out to be irrational when it comes to the most fundamental question.
The universe, as everything - including space, time, matter, energy and thought - can only be contrasted with nothing and can be expanding only if it is expanding into nothing. But if it is expanding into nothing then it is not expanding...
Therefore it cannot be expanding.
Despite what our perception tells us to the contrary, the universe is not expanding. This is both obvious and decisive.
@martinheideggershut You don't bother to read posts properly do you ? The idea that the universe can be expanding depends on a notion of the universe which excludes space. But that is, of course, a false notion.
The universe is not expanding - that's final. Philosophy knows this and doesn't waste time on such inane notions as the Big Bang Theory. If it SEEMS to be expanding then all this means is that perception fundamentally falsifies reality.
Even "philosophers" struggle with this fundamental and really very easy distinction. We have, on the one hand, something (anything). This includes our very thinking and feeling. It also includes space, time and matter.
The opposite of something is simply not anything at all. And if you have never wondered why there is not nothing at all then you have never made so much as the slightest movement towards philosophy, that is towards an insight of any worth whatsoever.
If the universe were expanding it would be expanding into space, but since it already includes space then it would be expanding into itself and therefore not expanding.
What kind of retard can't understand the simple distinction between something and nothing ? If there were nothing we wouldn't even be having a conversation. "Therefore", when I ask why there is not nothing, the very fact that I am even asking the question ought to astonish me.
I still think the one who really changed my view of philosophy would be David Hume. Sure he was more of a historian/ empiricist but his radical extreme questioning to everything could I think, still hold till now. In a way I think if Hume lived around Heidegger and sarte's time he would appreciate the existential movement. And to stretch it a bit...I would almost consider him an existentialist....in a way....slightly....a small percentage...lol ok maybe not but meh.
@martinheideggershut dont apologize! If anything what is proper spelling? They knew what you were saying. And you know who else was american? John Lock, Thomas Jefferson... the list goes on man. Picking at people due to spelling shows their lack of trying to understand philosophy and pretty much misses the point on this movement! We are watching heidegger on youtube...its not like we are watching lady gaga. we are are the same team. Oh the pretentions and condesending properties of some beings.
The real intellectual work today isn't being done by "thinkers" or religious people. It's being done by scientists, engineers, businessmen. These are not reflective types usually. Philosophy has been dead since Heidegger.
But today even the most able are little bits of a men masquerading as the whole, as Julia Flyte might have said.
Scientists' ignorance of philosophy is less than philosophers' of science.
"It is impossible that the universe is expanding into nothing."
That isn't the proposition Z. I'm not a physicist but I do know that. You're imagining the universe must be like a room without walls, ceiling, or floor. The proposition is that the universe is like the surface of a 4 dimensional sphere. If you travel in a straight line you'll end up where you started.
A being "is" a being. But that is not the same as to say : a being "is" (without qualification). A being is ONLY INSOFAR AS IT IS. Being alone "is". A being NEVER "is".
"Pure Being and pure Nothing are the same" (Hegel).
The careless, unthinking assumption of science and all modern thinking : that the universe "is". Actually it IS precisely NOT.
But if Being alone "is" then why did beings become in the first place ? Because, as Nothing, Being "is" by NOT being. Nothing nihilates ..
Nietzsche, in "The Will-to-Power" speaks of nihilism. Nothing is on his mind. A famous passage of his in this "work" speaks despairingly of a world which repeats itself ad infinitum without ever being able to disappear into nothingness.
And yet "logic" (and so-called "science") disallows all talk of nothing. Do we really understand what "logic" meant to the Greeks ? What LOGOS meant to, e.g. Heraclitus ?
Ultimately we are forced to raise the question concerning Nothing. But if we have already been conditioned into thinking that this question is "illegitimate" (i.e. "illogical") and we don't stop to wonder whether it is really IS illegitimate or illogical, then we are already lost on a wild goose chase. A child can ask this simplest of questions. And the Greeks were such children. We teach Greek philosophy and yet we don't understand it.
Then I try to conceive of the subject and of course in doing so I objectify it. This is what science does WITHOUT EVEN THINKING ABOUT IT, but philosophy acknowledges and will not allow itself to ignore. Science conceives of the subject in objective terms. In truth, most so-called "philosophy" proceeds in much the same way. But the all-pervasiveness of subjectivity cannot be brushed aside like this if we want to actually make a breakthrough in our thinking.
If the universe seems to be expanding then that is all : it merely SEEMS to be expanding. But since it CANNOT be expanding (as thought clearly tells us) then perhaps we need to look at PERCEPTION and how it is related to BEING. For a start, I look at the universe as if it were an "object". But IS it an object ? If so, then for whom ? For me, the subject. So the object always depends on the subject. The subject is therefore prior.
It is not "scientific" to entertain a thought which is not even possible. It is impossible that the universe is expanding into nothing, since if it were doing so it would not be expanding. This simple conclusion really ought to have guaranteed, from the beginning, that the silly, almost autistic idea of the Big Bang theory would never arise. But it did - bafflingly. Philosophy is so far ahead of science precisely because it realizes in advance what is and what not possible.
At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam, a suggestion to all scientists : read Heidegger's "What Is Metaphysics ?" and consider the essence of scientific thinking.
It is absolutely incredible that almost the entire globe is convinced by certain "scientific" ideas, e.g. the "Big Bang theory" of (so-called) cosmology. If you actually stop to think for a moment you would realize that it is NOT POSSIBLE for the universe to be expanding into nothing. This is ELEMENTARY thinking !
But when science forgets that it proceeds from what is fundamentally a metaphysical point of view and goes on to try to usurp philosophy - using "antimetaphysical metaphysics" (e.g. Hume) as the basis for its arguments - and has the temerity to rewrite the entire history of thought from this narrow-minded scientific viewpoint, then it goes too far. Heidegger is the ultimate Alka Seltzer for this kind of drunkenness.
It's possible for me to admire science which is brilliant but at the same time realizes and acknowledges the limitations of the basic scientific outlook, i.e. its objective stance. For "objectivity", as an attitude in general, is already a deep lie - and the greatest scientists already know this.
Where would we be without doctors ? What if an asteroid or comet were destined to hit the earth, with lethal consequences, and there were no astronomers to even alert us to our fate ?
It will seem like jibberish at first, but if you get what Heidegger means by Being it's easy. All you need is the first half of the book. BTW Heidegger never answered what he called The Question of Being (The Seinsfrage).
If you understand just the first half of Being and Time (the Macquarrie Robinson translation) your life will change in the sense that the what you took for the world and yourself will change. It is as if the whole of your life you had been staring at a wall and then were turned around.
Please don't take this as a cop out.
Being and Time is very difficult but not deliberately so like most very difficult philosophy.
Science for its own sake is moronic. Engineering for its own sake is too, but engineering for its own sake is far less common.
Z's ressentiment is clearer than anything he's written.
He's also totally missed that if it weren't for pragmatists like Gutenberg and Fleming he would already be dead from an infectious disease without ever having learned to read.
All "truths" are metaphysical and don't rely on "evidence" AT ALL. But what metaphysics itself has not understood - which incomprehension has made it by stages a slave to science - is that "thought" is NOT fundamental in the whole of being. Physics (science) deals with beings (already interpreted as such by thought, by metaphysics) ; meta-physics (philosophy) deals with Nothing - and this means that which goes beyond even thought.
Science seems to believe that it is discovering new things when it is actually just re-presenting to itself truths which have been understood hundreds or thousands of times before, by much humbler souls - and understood far more deeply to boot.
If there can be - or must be - any limits, either to time or space, then these can certainly never be conceived as "objective". Travel as far as you can - how could you ever come across nothing, i.e. the "place" where existence ended ? You would never get there : you would reach there by NOT reaching there, because there would be nowhere to reach ! And travel back to the beginning of time - at what time would time have begun ? Clearly at NO time ! Science is fundamentally STUPID.
If the "Big Bang Theory" describes anything it is certainly not the beginning of all existence - because there wasn't, isn't and cannot have been one ! How ARROGANT is it of science to claim such "knowledge" ? When did time begin then ? What kind of stupidity actually tries to DATE the universe when there was (OBVIOUSLY) no time before time ? What kind of moron comes out with these ideas ? What time was it before time began ? And what about the spatial limits of the universe ? Can there be any ?
The "Big Bang Theory" - what nonsense is this ? Instead of describing to us the first moments of the universe in exquisite detail can you actually try to explain how anything happened at all ? Have you ever bothered to think about that ? Start with nothing and try to get to something. Tricky isn't it ?
Science is mere pragmatism and utter drivel when the really burning questions take centre stage. How the hell is science going to be able to tell us why there is anything rather than nothing, for instance ? Science is moronic when you analyse it. It starts with something and it ends with something - and yet what were we looking to explain to begin with ? Something ? Then how can something be the answer ? Are all scientists incurable morons or what ? Philosophy is infinitely deeper than science.
I would imagine some progress has been made when you consider works like the Summa Theologica in comparison to a modern work by someone like Sartre. We've evolved into a far less zealous culture, and doing so, we've grown to appreciate scientific discovery. Philosophy has changed most drastically in the 20th century. I have no idea why you'd assume that philosophy doesn't progress. Someone's bound to write new ethics when machines are given human rights in the future.
@ShaneyElderberry I think Hans Gadamer said it best; "we need a common language," that language is to be founded in the physical truths, the key is that humanity does not know a language that is common and it is even within the bible that is attempted to be expressed though vainly symbolized by religions... Hermeneutics reveals thinking an seeing and that is to be transferred to a metaphysical language. The problem with society is the lacl of an instructions manual the bible is obsolete.
Science will put an end to this z, although since only a small minority of scientists are practical people it won't be soon.
You'd probably be dead, you'd certainly have bad teeth, you'd probably be illiterate, an you certainly wouldn't be using YouTube if it weren't for practical people making the effort "philosophers" never have.
@martinheideggershut That is the ultimate fantasy : physical immortality. What can I say ? When I was younger I wished for precisely that ! But it is, alas, a delusion. Even the eternal is finite, as you would understand if you had read Heidegger's What Is Metaphysics ? For Nothing is eternal, and Nothing IS precisely by - not being.
I do not dislike those who cling to such fantasies, especially since I am still hardly reconciled to the grim truth. But it is futile to cling to them.
Greek philosophy read through the lens of modern thinking - how trivial it is made to seem ! Thinkers such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Heidegger seem like oases of sanity in a desert of madness these days. I feel sorry for young genuinely philosophically oriented people who have just experienced - or are about to experience - the lack of depth which now exists everywhere, including in philosophy departments at universities.
Ultimately we are all going to die one day, we don't know when or why. We don't even know why we were born in the first place. We don't know whether we will pass out of being when the final moment comes or whether we will somehow continue. We don't even know why or how we came INTO being ! We don't know what we ought to be doing while we are alive or whether we "ought" to be doing anything. But we NEED to know all these things, and so we philosophise. Every one of us, to the best of his ability.
It is a very clever device, rhetoric. If a government - via the media - wants to adjust your thinking to fall into line with its own, it will first try to engage you in a debate which perhaps doesn't really matter at all. This is to say, it will ask you questions which don't really address the truth, but in such a way that they seem to be burning questions.
Such is the nature of both modern science and modern politics. Bring back the Greeks !
In philosophy the right QUESTION is far more important than the right answer.
If Heidegger is right and the question of Being (ontology) has been forgotten since Greek times then we ought not to believe anything we hear via the media (including books) these days.
"I no longer believe in anything" (Nietzsche).
If we are not even asking the right questions then does it really matter how impressive some of the answers on offer are ?
Potentially Offensive?! FUCK YOU YouTube!!!!!! This world we've made for ourselves is incredibly pathetic the vast majority of the time.
TheDavid2222 1 week ago
Why has this been flagged as potentially offensive?
craigpsimpson 2 weeks ago
què gracia, se llama Elfriede como mi hija.... y una grabacion de super 8mm. me encantan verlas, tan anatiguas,,tienen un algo especial...
Egleemann 1 month ago in playlist Philosophy
Ask a modern scientist a genuinely metaphysical question and he will immediately try to turn it into a scientific problem. Heidegger's essay, What Is Metaphysics ?, properly understood, debunks the arrogance of modern science. Do these modern monkeys actually believe that they have "overcome" philosophy ? They depend on its teachings even now.
zarakhast 2 months ago
... even arriving at questions which are actually of any importance. Institutions such as universities are a positive hindrance. They pay lip-service to "free-thinking" but they are in truth groups of cowards and dunderheads who lack any individuality or originality. Modern science is the "religion of commonsense". It loves to obscure the true questions by presenting its own pseudo-questions and assuming an air of authority which it does not really possess.
zarakhast 2 months ago
How do people watch documentaries like these ? The BBC is a legendary institution. Documentaries which seek to "sell" a particular point of view are pretty pathetic and will never stand stand the test of time. The BBC has always been almost revered worldwide precisely because it has always veered away from this tendency. But is this an impartial portrait of Heidegger ? I don't think so. And where in the documentary is there any discussion of his thought ?
zarakhast 3 months ago 2
Ladies please stop having these pointless debates... Let heidegger do the talking and you just listen.
CiaoBello21 6 months ago
@CiaoBello21 If you think discussions and debates are pointless then what are you doing with philosophy? :P
b4ssfactory 4 months ago
How many times does it need to be repeated ? "He who thinks great thoughts often makes great errors" is a statement made by Heidegger which has NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS. It has to do with the riddlesome and treacherous nature of Being, which is what Heidegger is ALWAYS talking about. He is not at all talking about godforsaken "politics". He is talking about how Being itself can lead astray (metaphysically) even the most honest inquiry, because it is intrinsically so elusive and ambiguous.
zarakhast 6 months ago 5
@zarakhast Heiddeger like any scientist of Intrinsic Anthropology was attempting to define the underlying principles in human nature' which has everything to do with Socialism and the politics surrounded around social science economic' what is the intent of any self education' look around the country' arewe being controlled byothers illicit acts of ignorance? Socialism breeds Authoritarian dictatorship ingov. Fascism tocontrol rather than sharing any true Authority of knowledge within education
DrFruedienslip 5 months ago
@DrFruedienslip Its the same thing Einstein was saying in regards to Quantum Mechanics and defining reality with his theory of relativity' what does anyone know about reality but what grasp within the many impressions'
DrFruedienslip 5 months ago
@DrFruedienslip He wasn't a mere anthropologist, he was a philosopher. Being comes first, human being comes second. This is "logical". A human being, in order to ground his point of view honestly, first needs to transcend his mere humanity and ask about Being. Luckily enough this ability has already been granted to him by Being - obviously, since everything has already been granted to everything by Being in advance. To be anything something must first BE something. It really is SO easy.
zarakhast 4 months ago
@zarakhast Its hard to be a being when we are being controlled by outside influences which dont make sense like aworld view' in memorialization by the doctrines within the media' its a long subject' but still we are one thing connected to one means in our survival' controlled by greed
DrFruedienslip 4 months ago
The biggest influence on our being beings is the prevailing interpretation of Being, which we all inevitably "live" by. And this has always been propagated by a philosopher of some sort, whether we realise it or not, and whether or not this individual (or group) can be identified. Today, philosophy is dead. "Science" rules. But "science" is nothing but the elaboration (quite boring) of an inferior metaphysical point of view. "Science" is NOT thinking. Thinking is something quite different.
zarakhast 4 months ago
@zarakhast Philosophical interpretation goes hand in hand within defining a metaphysical language to explain any aspect to conscious observations' it is within the impressions where observations can become obscured and lead to memorializations which influence the mind' the concern within humanity is within finding a common language which is what Georg Gadamer was expressing as well as Einstien' within the metaphysics to QM' but it is simply what we know' or actually how we know within reason
DrFruedienslip 4 months ago
@DrFruedienslip Very interesting point!
ThePhilosorpheus 3 months ago
@ThePhilosorpheus Thank you, Its difficult to imagine just how much anyone truly knows, for instance how much can anyone express within words any and all things of any and all experiences, and also questions what has driven any and all past and present philosophers; even the word philosophy is a questionable noun. Seemingly any philosophic exemplification would be related to defining any and all common experiences which is anything metaphysical within which to establish any mainstay....ect
DrFruedienslip 3 months ago
Comment removed
DrFruedienslip 3 months ago
@DrFruedienslip Any intent within exemplifying anything Quantum Mechanical would have everything to do within having a mainstay within any regards within exemplifying any and all intelligence' Intelligence itself would then be considered anything absolute and irrefutible within any and all sciences including heatlh concerns, and especially anthing social; example: Intrinsic Anthropology has been expanding within any and all technologies which demand any sense within any sensewithin anyconstrual.
DrFruedienslip 3 months ago
@zarakhast Couldn´t agree more. Curious how it became impossible to discuss with scientists, curious how discoveries which could have profound implications concerning some of the deepest philosophical issues, concerning fundamental human values, are overlooked, depending on whether or not it serves as means to build a new faster computer. I´m no communist, but that scientist´s arrogance goes hand in hand with the industrialist way of thinking is undeniable.
ThePhilosorpheus 3 months ago
@ThePhilosorpheus Scientists now have a monopoly on "cleverness". They are the most impressive people alive today. They are not RIGHT of course (they haven't got a clue in fact), but they have all the "best arguments" (even though these these arguments are, in actual fact, shit). They have decided that they already know what "reality" is and what "being" means. These are not important questions for them : they are not questions at all. And so, arseholes that they are, they rule our world.
zarakhast 3 months ago
@zarakhast Indeed. They all reduce the functioning of the world to their own perspective. Just the other day I saw a video about one of Google´s top software programmer, who also worked at NASA, talking about quantum mechanics. His conclusion was basically that our perception of reality is probably false (the old philosophical problem of realism/idealism) and why?.. Because in his perspective we´re very much like softwares programmed to perceive the world the way we do. Ridiculous.
ThePhilosorpheus 3 months ago
@ThePhilosorpheus This is exactly why Heidegger's question concerning Nothing is so important now. It is not a question which a community can unanimously decide, unless each member of that community goes away and asks that question by himself, to himself. But it is unlikely in the extreme that this will happen, so I'm afraid we're stuck with scientists and their stupid questions and answers. You truly need to be an independently-minded type to have any hope of ....
zarakhast 2 months ago
@zarakhast I agree, yet I think nothingness is a question which a community can unanimously decide. Each one of us understands the question differently and it has a particular value for each one of us, but in answering that question to ourselves what is the deciding factor? Reason? A leap of faith? Intuition? - if it is reason, there is a normative sense to that answer, for it implies logic, therefore a common "decision". Plus, I don´t believe a coherent society is possible without this decision
ThePhilosorpheus 2 months ago
'He who thinks great thoughts often make great errors' - That definitely sums up Heidegger's political beliefs.
roby1211 7 months ago
@roby1211 Eh, I'd support Hitler too.
FreeVonHelton 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 8 months ago
why are the user name "martineheideggershut"'s comments removed??
Adastra14 9 months ago
You didn't understand what I said.
Look up "just world phenomenon". Then look up "fallacy of composition".
martinheideggershut 10 months ago
"came from peasant stock" now there is a description I never thought I'd hear in a programme like this. I don't know how to take that at all lol
chelloandra 10 months ago
'Only the scientist or the politician (e.g. Tony Blair) is bothered about his place in "history"'. Not true at all. The religious get recognition from their god and therefore need it less from their society. At the end of history the religious have a place. The "professional philosopher" seeks to publicize his thinking and seeks to make converts of his students in part for fame and glory.
Humans aren't rational, but they are habitual rationalizers. You're an example.
martinheideggershut 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Ressentiment is an elevated, metaphysical concept" That's like calling "the desire for recognition" (from The Phenomenology of Spirit) an "elevated ..." No. I encounter both all the time even in myself.
"But you also have to be extremely stupid and incautious to assume that death is 'the end'". Expand on this. Heidegger never addressed this question.
martinheideggershut 10 months ago
Comment removed
martinheideggershut 10 months ago
Comment removed
martinheideggershut 10 months ago
Ressentiment is an elevated, metaphysical concept. It has nothing to do with anything as petty as the ego. Only the scientist or the politician (e.g. Tony Blair) is bothered about his place in "history" or his "IQ". When you die your IQ becomes 0. Your "reputation" is annihilated, along with you. You have to be extremely stupid to imagine otherwise. But you also have to be extremely stupid and incautious to assume that death is "the end" (in the sense that you just "go to sleep").
zarakhast 10 months ago
@zarakhast
Death is just the beginning of real live.
cause the spirit never dies....
MrEnver2 10 months ago
@MrEnver2 There is no spirit. Death is the end of life. But take some comfort. I was dead billions of years before i was born and i didn't have the slightest problem with it.
DerrenBrown100 10 months ago
@DerrenBrown100
There is no comfort.
Typical just world phenomenon bullshit. Only someone who can't think would think such a thing.
martinheideggershut 10 months ago
@martinheideggershut You don't live forever, sorry to burst your bubble.
DerrenBrown100 10 months ago
@DerrenBrown100 good point. To add to that I don't think nothingness is a negative thing. It's just neutral.
TheDavid2222 8 months ago
Once you admit your resentment you'll have a better chance of having no one to resent.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
And judging from your posts you don't understand Heidegger either.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
@martinheideggershut ...you, you, you! How should reading read this? Wasn't Heidegger the finger pointing beyond subject/objectivism? If "you" thinks "you" don't - then niether/nor. Movement is dying to move past this thisness (and this is not "just" poetry, but closer to what is than "what" is). Advice advises that leaving leaves "them" alone and you and I move over and before ourselves to let Human Being be. Besides, let-be...isn't that the way (the Tao?) that gets out of the way?
ProfessorPanglossIV 10 months ago
"But you are completely in the dark about Heidegger's thought"
No. You hold to your "understanding" of Heidegger out of resentment. You resent those who are intellectually and morally suerior to you. You don't even understand what Nietzsche meant by resentment.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"areas originally demarcated with far more care and depth by philosophy - and employed in essence a uniform methodology to deal with everything"
"social science" is 100% bull shit, but what more effective method would you suggest natural scientists use? As a matter of fact natural science has no method. Whatever works is what scientists use.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
People like Richard Dawkins are idiots, of course, but so are liberal arts types who comment on things they don't have any clue about. Ressentiment for sure.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
@martinheideggershut Dawkins is an idiot, you are right about that : a shallow, superficial Pied Piper if ever there was one. But you are completely in the dark about Heidegger's thought. "Ressentiment", by the way, is Nietzsche's word for the attitude taken towards eternity (as perpetual becoming) by those who cannot accept it. It is a negative attitude towards eternity. It has nothing to do with a feeling of not being as "clever" as one's fellow man.
zarakhast 11 months ago
You're confusing what scientists "think" when and if they think, the scientific worldview, and what scientists do. Science, what scientists do, is work. Even theoretical physics amounts to nothing if it makes no testable claims, and theorizing is a very small part of science. My background in science is synthetic organic chemistry---making molecules.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
To repeat : the quote at the beginning of this documentary , "He who thinks great thoughts often makes great errors" has been plucked out of its original context here and used miscievously to insinuate something very different from what Heidegger meant when he uttered those words.
With these words Heidegger was saying something eternally true about the precarious position of the philosopher - NOT with regard to his "conduct" but with regard to the treacherous nature of Being.
zarakhast 11 months ago
@zarakhast
"the treacherous nature of Being"
You mean Being hides itself with beings
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
The question of the meaning of Being is the leading question not only of philosophy but of thinking as such. The question which grants us access to an understanding of the tenor of this question is the fundamental question of metaphysics : Why is there something and not nothing ?
zarakhast 11 months ago
Science turns everything - including consciousness - into an ob-ject (something which stands over against me, the observer - whether the observer be the senses or the mind). But the genuine reality is not an object at all, it is an INNER reality and can NEVER be re-presented. The Tao says this so clearly and so succinctly already. Heidegger attempts to show Western thought the error of its ways in his essay on the subject of das Nichts (Nothing).
zarakhast 11 months ago
@zarakhast
"Science turns everything - including consciousness - into an ob-ject" Like I said the metaphysical foundations of science are only aproblem when scientists investigate things that are outside their purview.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
The metaphysical foundation of science still governs science when it is investigating things which lie WITHIN its "purview" (and what doesn't lie within its purview, except nothing ?) Metaphysics, as fundamental to knowledge as such, ought to be acknowledged and incorporated by science as basic and necessary. It is not as if metaphysics is important only when we are discussing specifically metaphysical questions. Without a fundamentally unifying principle all thinking becomes disordered.
zarakhast 11 months ago
@zarakhast
"and what doesn't lie within its purview, except nothing ?"
a lot.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
@martinheideggershut Nothing except nothing lies within the "purview" of science - this is precisely what makes science seem so convincing to ordinary understanding. Science has usurped control of every area of knowledge - areas originally demarcated with far more care and depth by philosophy - and employed in essence a uniform methodology to deal with everything. This is all thanks (and I mean that sarcastically) to such thinkers as Hume, who presumptuously and wrongly dismissed metaphysics.
zarakhast 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zarakhast
"ought to be acknowledged and incorporated by science as basic and necessary"
I'm sure scientists like to be told how to do their job.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
If there are indeed laws of reason then metaphysics seeks to ground these too. Even the laws of reason are something. It may be the case that the ground of reason is unreason and that the ground of law is un-law (freedom, chaos). This may even be absolutely necessary and therefore logical. It careless and thoughtless to assume any "laws of reason" in advance - even after these have been authoritatively pronounced by a thinker. Even Aristotle, as a philosopher, would have agreed with this.
zarakhast 11 months ago
Philosophy is metaphysics, science is (at bottom) physics. Metaphysics involves the thinker's whole being, not merely his intellect. It is thoughtless to assume without question that everything conforms to the laws of reason, since reason no less than anything else is something and ALL things fall into question in metaphysical inquiry.
zarakhast 11 months ago
@zarakhast
"science is (at bottom) physics" As a practical matter biology and chemistry are not reducible to physics. Theoretically they are.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
@martinheideggershut Inasmuch as "theoretically" here means the same as "in principle" then all science is fundamentally physics. But what follows from this ? A homogenization of all scientific thinking and of everything which science inquires into ? So that even the soul becomes explicable in terms of the laws of physics ? What dire consequences might such a viewpoint lead to ?
But the foundation of physics is itself meta-physical.
zarakhast 11 months ago
@zarakhast
"Inasmuch as "theoretically" here means the same as "in principle" then all science is fundamentally physics."
No.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
Philosophy is not a specialism. It is all-embracing. It is the only inquiry which actually makes the attempt to get the totality of beings in view in one go. It does so logically by moving from the general to the particular, with a view to comprehending the particular by means of the general (universal).
To claim that a philosopher ought not to speculate on the cosmos is like saying that a baker ought not to speculate on baking.
zarakhast 11 months ago
The universe is by definition ONE. There cannot be multiple universes. If there were multiple "universes" then these "universes" collectively would be the universe.
It is not very difficult to understand why something which is expanding must be expanding into something else. The universe is already everything. Therefore it cannot be expanding.
"Cosmology" in the modern scientific sense of the word is illogical piffle.
zarakhast 11 months ago
Heidegger is more difficult to understand than that there is no "into".
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
@martinheideggershut What you seem to want to say is that the universe is expanding but that it is expanding into nothing. Otherwise I cannot understand what you intend when you say that "there is no into". But if it is expanding into nothing then it is clearly not expanding is it ??? Please expand ....
zarakhast 11 months ago
Suppose space were infinite, had only three dimensions, and was Euclidean. Then suppose it is filled with an infinite number of galaxies and that these galaxies are all becoming more and more distant from one another. There is no contradiction here and in this case a cosmologist would describe the universe as expanding even though it is always infinite. It's the galaxies' rushing away from one another that is meant by expansion.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
But we might then ask whether or not it is a contradiction for nothing not to continue - or whether indeed by not continuing it thereby continues.
Is nothing nothing by not being nothing (i.e. by being something) ?
What about this "not" ?
zarakhast 11 months ago
@zarakhast
Heideggerians shouldn't speculate on cosmology any more than they should speculate on medicine.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
The original question being, Why is there anything (at all) rather than nothing ?
And we necessarily start with nothing and ask : how could it ever "be" ? And then we ask ourselves what we mean here by "being" ? We are asking how (or indeed IF) it could continue (remain) if it ever once could be. And the answer is NO. For if it continued it would not be nothing, for it would be time - and time is not nothing.
zarakhast 11 months ago
@zarakhast
Eventually cosmologists hope to show that either this universe is one of many possible universes Or that this universe is somehow the only possible universe. Obviously they are a very long way away from that. They'll tell you.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
The universe (as everything) is not expanding - it's a metaphysical given. If you can't even get this far then you may as well not bother at all.
But the question as to why the universe should be existing at all rather than not existing is far from having been answered by some facile piece if "logic". We still stand in astonishment at the inexplicable fact that anything exists at all. We have no explanation. And so we examine the original question more carefully ....
zarakhast 11 months ago
@zarakhast
Who is "we"?
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
You can't claim that the universe is expanding and then casually add that there is no "into". What do you mean by this ? Do you mean that it is not expanding into anything ? Well then it is expanding into nothing, which means that it is not expanding, because in that case there would be nothing for it to expand into. Or do you wish to do away with the preposition "into" ? What exactly do you mean when you say that there is "no into" ?
zarakhast 11 months ago
And please don't give me an answer in terms of physics. It's a metaphysical question.
zarakhast 11 months ago
@zarakhast
it's not a metaphysical question.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
@zarakhast
It isn't a metaphysical question.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
You must be talking about z.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
To all the silly little modernist subjectivist metaphysicians leaving posts about Heidegger: To interpret Heidegger as Heideggerian is like interpreting Mathematics as Mathematicianist (Erdos?) All the subjects posting and then defending their subjectivist metaphysics here only proves how little of the speech spoke with-in Heidegger was heard. Here-hear???
ProfessorPanglossIV 11 months ago
Philosophy is a priori. It depends on ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. It has NO starting point. It makes NO assumptions. Its proper subject matter is NOTHING. It cannot be taught. It is not a "technique". It is, from the mundane point of view which is today universally represented by "science", like "magic". And yet it is far more rigorous, far more "logical" than science, precisely because it is not a slave to mere "reason".
zarakhast 11 months ago
@zarakhast
Maybe you should get together with your fellow chavs and watch football on the telly.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
@martinheideggershut Surely you can do better than this ?
zarakhast 11 months ago
If we have to confront the question concerning nothing - and we surely do, since this is where all serious thinking inevitably winds up - how can we even begin ? Do we start with a "principle", e.g. "reason" ? But wouldn't to do so be to evade the question already ? If I ask why there is anything and not nothing I also ask why there is reason. So to base the inquiry on the principle of reason is already unreasonable and unprincipled. Reason somehow has to transcend itself.
zarakhast 11 months ago
@zarakhast
I agree.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
If the universe can't be expanding (which is obviously the case and is possibly the easiest piece of reasoning EVER) and scientists still believe that it IS expanding then scientists are ipso facto MORONS. I don't think this can be denied - except by a moron. We don't need to produce any "evidence" here. What a set of blockheads scientists are really !
zarakhast 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zarakhast
"What a set of blockheads scientists are really !"
I like antibiotics though. I also like the transistor.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
And since the universe cannot be expanding the Big Bang theory is clearly a non-starter. Yet we read of nothing else. Scientists actually, wholeheartedly believe in something which is NOT EVEN POSSIBLE !
And yet we hear (from scientists) that the average IQ of the scientist is higher than that of the poor, humble philosopher !
So to make such a thoroughly embarrassing mistake is intelligent is it ? Is it really intelligent to entertain an idea which isn't even possible ?
zarakhast 11 months ago
Scratch that. I did say it. But you chose to misrepresent it.
"The idea that the universe can be expanding depends on a notion of the universe which excludes space" is correct. For it could only be expanding into space. What else could it be expanding into ?
But since the universe already includes space then any such notion is not a notion of the universe.
The universe is not expanding because it can't be. And that really ought to be good enough for all you moronic scientists.
zarakhast 11 months ago
@zarakhast
"What else could it be expanding into ?"
There is no "into".
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
@martinheideggershut If there is expansion then there must also be an "into". But you clearly have something recondite in mind. It might help if you tried to say what it is.
zarakhast 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zarakhast
"If there is expansion then there must also be an "into"''
Wrong.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
@zarakhast
"And that really ought to be good enough for all you moronic scientists."
I'm not a scientist.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
@martinheideggershut Why don't you name yourself after a thinker who you actually understand ? If there's one thing that's worse than outright opposition to Heidegger's thought it is people who masquerade as his supporters who, however, haven't got a clue what he's talking about.
zarakhast 11 months ago
0:01 whose sketch is that?
amiroomify 11 months ago
Richard Rorty was a moron.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
I think Rorty misses the point, because one could say Heidegger was critical of "the liberal project" particularly strong in the US, also Britain and to some extent France. To me Heidegger is simply reminding us of another way of doing philosophy that got buried away. It would be a false dilemma to state that philosophy critical of liberalism equals Hitler.
Stake2 11 months ago
"The idea that the universe can be expanding depends on a notion of the universe which excludes space."
Space is part of the universe. How can the universe exclude itself?
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
@martinheideggershut Huh ? Who are you quoting now ? I never said that you dastardly individual !
The universe is everything and therefore also space. But in order for it to expand (i.e. if this were actually possible) it would HAVE to be expanding into space. But since it already includes space then this is obviously not possible. There is nothing for it to expand into, since it is already everything. Do you agree ? Are you satisfied ? Is this a test of MY comprehension rather than yours ?
zarakhast 11 months ago
@zarakhast
"it would HAVE to be expanding into space. But since it already includes space then this is obviously not possible."
Wrong. You didn't pass an A-level in physics or maths did you z?
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
@martinheideggershut Well come on then clever clogs, what could it be expanding into if not space ?
Could it be expanding into nothing ? Clearly not. And since it is everything (including space) and all there is apart from it is nothing then it is not expanding.
zarakhast 11 months ago
@martinheideggershut For your information (though I don't know why I'm bothering to tell you this) I studied Philosophy with Classical Civilisation at Warwick University in the early nineties and in order to qualify I studied maths as part of an access course - and did very well thank you.
In any case I'm intrigued to know why you seem to believe that a background in maths and physics is necessary in order to study philosophy. It isn't.
zarakhast 11 months ago
@zarakhast
"In any case I'm intrigued to know why you seem to believe that a background in maths and physics is necessary in order to study philosophy. It isn't."
Of course it isn't. But it would help you to understand why there needn't be an "into".
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
@martinheideggershut Explain to me how something can be expanding but not "into" anything. And if something is expanding into nothing then in what sense is it expanding ?
zarakhast 11 months ago
@zarakhast
It's difficult to explain in ordinary language. A cosmologist would describe the universe as a self-contained topological space, a topological space which is not embedded in a larger topological space. When the space is stretched and everything in it is more distant from everything else this is what is meant by expansion.
martinheideggershut 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"and can be expanding only if it is expanding into nothing"
There is no "into". Space needn't be Euclidean, and if it is Euclidean there is no "into" either, because if space is Euclidean it is infinite and the matter in it infinite.
"Therefore it is also included in the question when we ask why there is not nothing."
You're preaching to the choir.
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
Scientists and most traditional metaphysicians just do not "get" Heidegger at all. This is because they are TOO "rational".
Reason is also nothing. Therefore it is also included in the question when we ask why there is not nothing. We ask a question which is so comprehensive that it goes beyond even reason. The "rational" point of view turns out to be irrational when it comes to the most fundamental question.
zarakhast 1 year ago
@zarakhast *reason is also NOT nothing* I meant to say.
zarakhast 1 year ago
"If there were nothing I couldn't wonder at there being something."
Precisely !
So, since I AM here and this fact is inexplicable, why is there something and not nothing ?
zarakhast 1 year ago
And so we are forced to face the question concerning nothing.
And yet no one ever bothers to do so. WHY ???
zarakhast 1 year ago
Despite appearances Heidegger was 6'5" and black.
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
"If the universe were expanding it would be expanding into space"
No. The universe has no boundary. The universe is not within anything.
"And if you have never wondered why there is not nothing at all."
If there were nothing I couldn't wonder at there being something.
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
@martinheideggershut Which is exactly what I was saying .....
The universe, as everything - including space, time, matter, energy and thought - can only be contrasted with nothing and can be expanding only if it is expanding into nothing. But if it is expanding into nothing then it is not expanding...
Therefore it cannot be expanding.
Despite what our perception tells us to the contrary, the universe is not expanding. This is both obvious and decisive.
zarakhast 1 year ago
@martinheideggershut You don't bother to read posts properly do you ? The idea that the universe can be expanding depends on a notion of the universe which excludes space. But that is, of course, a false notion.
The universe is not expanding - that's final. Philosophy knows this and doesn't waste time on such inane notions as the Big Bang Theory. If it SEEMS to be expanding then all this means is that perception fundamentally falsifies reality.
zarakhast 1 year ago
Comment removed
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
Even "philosophers" struggle with this fundamental and really very easy distinction. We have, on the one hand, something (anything). This includes our very thinking and feeling. It also includes space, time and matter.
The opposite of something is simply not anything at all. And if you have never wondered why there is not nothing at all then you have never made so much as the slightest movement towards philosophy, that is towards an insight of any worth whatsoever.
zarakhast 1 year ago
If the universe were expanding it would be expanding into space, but since it already includes space then it would be expanding into itself and therefore not expanding.
What kind of retard can't understand the simple distinction between something and nothing ? If there were nothing we wouldn't even be having a conversation. "Therefore", when I ask why there is not nothing, the very fact that I am even asking the question ought to astonish me.
zarakhast 1 year ago
I still think the one who really changed my view of philosophy would be David Hume. Sure he was more of a historian/ empiricist but his radical extreme questioning to everything could I think, still hold till now. In a way I think if Hume lived around Heidegger and sarte's time he would appreciate the existential movement. And to stretch it a bit...I would almost consider him an existentialist....in a way....slightly....a small percentage...lol ok maybe not but meh.
MochizMuM 1 year ago
Comment removed
gregorylarsens 1 year ago
Pity me because I'm an American.
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
@martinheideggershut dont apologize! If anything what is proper spelling? They knew what you were saying. And you know who else was american? John Lock, Thomas Jefferson... the list goes on man. Picking at people due to spelling shows their lack of trying to understand philosophy and pretty much misses the point on this movement! We are watching heidegger on youtube...its not like we are watching lady gaga. we are are the same team. Oh the pretentions and condesending properties of some beings.
MochizMuM 1 year ago
@martinheideggershut You poor American !!
Look, the distinction between science (physics) and philosophy (metaphysics) is so simple :
Physis (understood in the original, Greek sense) = everything, including space, time, matter AND THOUGHT.
Meta means "beyond".
Metaphysics goes beyond ("transcends") everything. To what ? What else except Nothing ?
And can something expand into nothing ? Of course it can't !
The "Big Bang theory" is a RETARDED thought.
zarakhast 1 year ago
Go to
Wikipedia,
expansion of the universe,
what space is the universe expanding into.
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
Here ya go Z. Read an be enlightened. From Wikipedia: What space is the universe expanding into?
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
Who are "we" Z? What is "our"?
People who speak in this manner, like Fukuyama, are morons.
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
The real intellectual work today isn't being done by "thinkers" or religious people. It's being done by scientists, engineers, businessmen. These are not reflective types usually. Philosophy has been dead since Heidegger.
But today even the most able are little bits of a men masquerading as the whole, as Julia Flyte might have said.
The specialization of labor is dehumanizing.
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
@martinheideggershut
Specialisation spelt with a z is just wrong.
ic1male80 1 year ago
Scientists' ignorance of philosophy is less than philosophers' of science.
"It is impossible that the universe is expanding into nothing."
That isn't the proposition Z. I'm not a physicist but I do know that. You're imagining the universe must be like a room without walls, ceiling, or floor. The proposition is that the universe is like the surface of a 4 dimensional sphere. If you travel in a straight line you'll end up where you started.
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
A being "is" a being. But that is not the same as to say : a being "is" (without qualification). A being is ONLY INSOFAR AS IT IS. Being alone "is". A being NEVER "is".
"Pure Being and pure Nothing are the same" (Hegel).
The careless, unthinking assumption of science and all modern thinking : that the universe "is". Actually it IS precisely NOT.
But if Being alone "is" then why did beings become in the first place ? Because, as Nothing, Being "is" by NOT being. Nothing nihilates ..
zarakhast 1 year ago
Nietzsche, in "The Will-to-Power" speaks of nihilism. Nothing is on his mind. A famous passage of his in this "work" speaks despairingly of a world which repeats itself ad infinitum without ever being able to disappear into nothingness.
And yet "logic" (and so-called "science") disallows all talk of nothing. Do we really understand what "logic" meant to the Greeks ? What LOGOS meant to, e.g. Heraclitus ?
zarakhast 1 year ago
The Greeks themselves said : "philosophy is born in wonder".
Heidegger said : "Wonder is the revelation of Nothing".
Hegel said : "Pure Being and pure Nothing are the same".
Leibniz asked : "Why is is there something rather than nothing ? For nothing is simpler and easier than something ?"
The only time Socrates ever kept his mouth shut was when he (reverently) listened to Parmenides. The subject ? Nothing.
The subject "matter" of The Sophist ? Nothing.
zarakhast 1 year ago
Ultimately we are forced to raise the question concerning Nothing. But if we have already been conditioned into thinking that this question is "illegitimate" (i.e. "illogical") and we don't stop to wonder whether it is really IS illegitimate or illogical, then we are already lost on a wild goose chase. A child can ask this simplest of questions. And the Greeks were such children. We teach Greek philosophy and yet we don't understand it.
zarakhast 1 year ago
Then I try to conceive of the subject and of course in doing so I objectify it. This is what science does WITHOUT EVEN THINKING ABOUT IT, but philosophy acknowledges and will not allow itself to ignore. Science conceives of the subject in objective terms. In truth, most so-called "philosophy" proceeds in much the same way. But the all-pervasiveness of subjectivity cannot be brushed aside like this if we want to actually make a breakthrough in our thinking.
zarakhast 1 year ago
If the universe seems to be expanding then that is all : it merely SEEMS to be expanding. But since it CANNOT be expanding (as thought clearly tells us) then perhaps we need to look at PERCEPTION and how it is related to BEING. For a start, I look at the universe as if it were an "object". But IS it an object ? If so, then for whom ? For me, the subject. So the object always depends on the subject. The subject is therefore prior.
zarakhast 1 year ago
It is not "scientific" to entertain a thought which is not even possible. It is impossible that the universe is expanding into nothing, since if it were doing so it would not be expanding. This simple conclusion really ought to have guaranteed, from the beginning, that the silly, almost autistic idea of the Big Bang theory would never arise. But it did - bafflingly. Philosophy is so far ahead of science precisely because it realizes in advance what is and what not possible.
zarakhast 1 year ago
At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam, a suggestion to all scientists : read Heidegger's "What Is Metaphysics ?" and consider the essence of scientific thinking.
It is absolutely incredible that almost the entire globe is convinced by certain "scientific" ideas, e.g. the "Big Bang theory" of (so-called) cosmology. If you actually stop to think for a moment you would realize that it is NOT POSSIBLE for the universe to be expanding into nothing. This is ELEMENTARY thinking !
zarakhast 1 year ago
But when science forgets that it proceeds from what is fundamentally a metaphysical point of view and goes on to try to usurp philosophy - using "antimetaphysical metaphysics" (e.g. Hume) as the basis for its arguments - and has the temerity to rewrite the entire history of thought from this narrow-minded scientific viewpoint, then it goes too far. Heidegger is the ultimate Alka Seltzer for this kind of drunkenness.
zarakhast 1 year ago
It's possible for me to admire science which is brilliant but at the same time realizes and acknowledges the limitations of the basic scientific outlook, i.e. its objective stance. For "objectivity", as an attitude in general, is already a deep lie - and the greatest scientists already know this.
Where would we be without doctors ? What if an asteroid or comet were destined to hit the earth, with lethal consequences, and there were no astronomers to even alert us to our fate ?
zarakhast 1 year ago
It will seem like jibberish at first, but if you get what Heidegger means by Being it's easy. All you need is the first half of the book. BTW Heidegger never answered what he called The Question of Being (The Seinsfrage).
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
If you understand just the first half of Being and Time (the Macquarrie Robinson translation) your life will change in the sense that the what you took for the world and yourself will change. It is as if the whole of your life you had been staring at a wall and then were turned around.
Please don't take this as a cop out.
Being and Time is very difficult but not deliberately so like most very difficult philosophy.
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
Comment removed
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
Comment removed
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
Comment removed
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
Comment removed
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
Try reading philosophy when you can't read and can't afford books because they're all written by hand on calf skin.
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
Science for its own sake is moronic. Engineering for its own sake is too, but engineering for its own sake is far less common.
Z's ressentiment is clearer than anything he's written.
He's also totally missed that if it weren't for pragmatists like Gutenberg and Fleming he would already be dead from an infectious disease without ever having learned to read.
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
Sounds like your into humbug territory z. Even Heidegger was occasionally there.
Let me be clear.
"Science is mere pragmatism..." Not even close to the truth.
Most science is drivel, because it has no conceivable application.
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
All "truths" are metaphysical and don't rely on "evidence" AT ALL. But what metaphysics itself has not understood - which incomprehension has made it by stages a slave to science - is that "thought" is NOT fundamental in the whole of being. Physics (science) deals with beings (already interpreted as such by thought, by metaphysics) ; meta-physics (philosophy) deals with Nothing - and this means that which goes beyond even thought.
zarakhast 1 year ago
Science seems to believe that it is discovering new things when it is actually just re-presenting to itself truths which have been understood hundreds or thousands of times before, by much humbler souls - and understood far more deeply to boot.
zarakhast 1 year ago
If there can be - or must be - any limits, either to time or space, then these can certainly never be conceived as "objective". Travel as far as you can - how could you ever come across nothing, i.e. the "place" where existence ended ? You would never get there : you would reach there by NOT reaching there, because there would be nowhere to reach ! And travel back to the beginning of time - at what time would time have begun ? Clearly at NO time ! Science is fundamentally STUPID.
zarakhast 1 year ago
If the "Big Bang Theory" describes anything it is certainly not the beginning of all existence - because there wasn't, isn't and cannot have been one ! How ARROGANT is it of science to claim such "knowledge" ? When did time begin then ? What kind of stupidity actually tries to DATE the universe when there was (OBVIOUSLY) no time before time ? What kind of moron comes out with these ideas ? What time was it before time began ? And what about the spatial limits of the universe ? Can there be any ?
zarakhast 1 year ago
The "Big Bang Theory" - what nonsense is this ? Instead of describing to us the first moments of the universe in exquisite detail can you actually try to explain how anything happened at all ? Have you ever bothered to think about that ? Start with nothing and try to get to something. Tricky isn't it ?
zarakhast 1 year ago
Science is mere pragmatism and utter drivel when the really burning questions take centre stage. How the hell is science going to be able to tell us why there is anything rather than nothing, for instance ? Science is moronic when you analyse it. It starts with something and it ends with something - and yet what were we looking to explain to begin with ? Something ? Then how can something be the answer ? Are all scientists incurable morons or what ? Philosophy is infinitely deeper than science.
zarakhast 1 year ago
It is man against the machine
MegaFargone 1 year ago
If any philosopher was not a loser it was Heidegger. To understand him is like being punched by Marciano.
One of the commentators said, "The moment one reads Heidegger life is different afterwards."
This is "absolutely" true.
His Nazsim requires a reappraisal of Nazism not a reappraisal of Heidegger.
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
@martinheideggershut You are so right I like your metaphor
MegaFargone 1 year ago
@martinheideggershut
Could you explain to me why reading Heidegger should change my life?
alexington459 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hi frend, can you make this documantery english subtitle and send to me ? my e-mail adres is: socrates0025@hotmail.com
thanks
tigris0025 1 year ago
place. the question of being leads to the problem of place.
inverhillsphilo 1 year ago
You're stuck in the present z.
How far has science and techne come since Plato? That's just 2300 years.
How far will it go in 10 million?
Philosophers don't make progress. They're losers.
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
@martinheideggershut
its ok, science and technology getting mad at philosophy is like teenage kids getting mad at their parents for their traditional but wiser thoughts.
toosikforyou 1 year ago
@martinheideggershut
I would imagine some progress has been made when you consider works like the Summa Theologica in comparison to a modern work by someone like Sartre. We've evolved into a far less zealous culture, and doing so, we've grown to appreciate scientific discovery. Philosophy has changed most drastically in the 20th century. I have no idea why you'd assume that philosophy doesn't progress. Someone's bound to write new ethics when machines are given human rights in the future.
ShaneyElderberry 1 year ago
@ShaneyElderberry I think Hans Gadamer said it best; "we need a common language," that language is to be founded in the physical truths, the key is that humanity does not know a language that is common and it is even within the bible that is attempted to be expressed though vainly symbolized by religions... Hermeneutics reveals thinking an seeing and that is to be transferred to a metaphysical language. The problem with society is the lacl of an instructions manual the bible is obsolete.
MegaFargone 1 year ago
"Ultimately we are all going to die one day"
Science will put an end to this z, although since only a small minority of scientists are practical people it won't be soon.
You'd probably be dead, you'd certainly have bad teeth, you'd probably be illiterate, an you certainly wouldn't be using YouTube if it weren't for practical people making the effort "philosophers" never have.
Even the greats were little bits of men.
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
@martinheideggershut That is the ultimate fantasy : physical immortality. What can I say ? When I was younger I wished for precisely that ! But it is, alas, a delusion. Even the eternal is finite, as you would understand if you had read Heidegger's What Is Metaphysics ? For Nothing is eternal, and Nothing IS precisely by - not being.
I do not dislike those who cling to such fantasies, especially since I am still hardly reconciled to the grim truth. But it is futile to cling to them.
zarakhast 1 year ago
@martinheideggershut Nope, guess again.
FreeVonHelton 1 year ago
Greek philosophy read through the lens of modern thinking - how trivial it is made to seem ! Thinkers such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Heidegger seem like oases of sanity in a desert of madness these days. I feel sorry for young genuinely philosophically oriented people who have just experienced - or are about to experience - the lack of depth which now exists everywhere, including in philosophy departments at universities.
zarakhast 1 year ago
Ultimately we are all going to die one day, we don't know when or why. We don't even know why we were born in the first place. We don't know whether we will pass out of being when the final moment comes or whether we will somehow continue. We don't even know why or how we came INTO being ! We don't know what we ought to be doing while we are alive or whether we "ought" to be doing anything. But we NEED to know all these things, and so we philosophise. Every one of us, to the best of his ability.
zarakhast 1 year ago
It is a very clever device, rhetoric. If a government - via the media - wants to adjust your thinking to fall into line with its own, it will first try to engage you in a debate which perhaps doesn't really matter at all. This is to say, it will ask you questions which don't really address the truth, but in such a way that they seem to be burning questions.
Such is the nature of both modern science and modern politics. Bring back the Greeks !
zarakhast 1 year ago
In philosophy the right QUESTION is far more important than the right answer.
If Heidegger is right and the question of Being (ontology) has been forgotten since Greek times then we ought not to believe anything we hear via the media (including books) these days.
"I no longer believe in anything" (Nietzsche).
If we are not even asking the right questions then does it really matter how impressive some of the answers on offer are ?
Why is there anything rather than nothing ?
zarakhast 1 year ago