This is armchair philosophy with a vengeance. Not everything is a posteriori; nor is the contrary the same as a counterpoint: something cannot be and be at the same time and in the same relationship.
When you say "god" do you mean the transcendent energy source manifest in everything (unity) the consciousness that IS you and me beyond/within/manifest as tangible form, or do you believe in some mythical character or intelligent designer out there somewhere?
O, boy, I don't know about your philosophy, but you sure look hot in that undershirt!
And do you know that there is a certain aspect of philosophy in this as well... I don't mean to detract from your intellectual speculation, but I like how you unconsciously caress yourself while your are speaking! Perhaps Merleau-Ponty has something to say about how we can love our own body as an object while subjectively experiencing it?
You embody philosophy for me in a most sensual manner...
It would be cool to write a paper on the contrasts of Martin Luther and Martin Buber. You think? You could call the paper "Luther Buber." Ahg, at least I thought it was funny.
Btw, you look very tired and out of it here but it's a compliment since you're still very thoughtful/intelligent in your thoughts. It shows a strong mind. Okay, I think I suck up too much. :-P
Logic requires words for interaction: Sound Medicine is presented with support from the IU Medical Group, the clinical practice of the Indiana University School of Medicine Faculty physicians; The Lilly Clinic, where healthy volunteers help develop new medicines; and Clarian, with its Call to Change to a healthier lifestyle.
watching it again i was thinking how many theological writers and philosophers were influenced by Nietzsche the atheist. I think it makes sense that God as metaphysical has lost meaning, but perhaps there is a rebirth of "God" in Ontology...I have to read Buber. Shestov, Levinas, and Marion are good too...they talk about this.
I think another interesting place for God in philosophy would be the rediscovery of Thomistic metaphysics under the modern analytics and in phenomenological study. Stein, Anscombe, Haldane, Maritain, Gilson, Wippel, Sokolowski, all come to mind.
There is no metaphysics. Metaphysics is a failed attempt of routing out ontology. I'm familiar with Aristotle's views, but then Aristotle neglected Ontology by being a metaphysician.
Your terms are incoherent. Ontology is the same word used in modern thought to refer to "metaphysics." And if you think metaphysics impossible, go read Heideggar.
I've read Heidegger, and I've read his critique of Nietzsche's words that being is but a whisp or vapor of reality.
I take a lot from Heidegger, but not his claim that metaphysics is just left empty and never really gone. Of logical necessity, to which metaphysics and not ontology can apply, there is no need for metaphysics itself.
it is staunchly un-heideggerian of you to say these two words mean the same thing and refer to one another, they have more meaning than merely that!
That is not Heideggar's claim at all. Heideggar's entire task is to rejuvenate the study of metaphysics - the preamble, I believe, of Being and Time is precisely on why metaphysics (aka, ontology) are valid disciplines. And, yes, they do mean the same thing. Look up both in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy if you don't believe me.
duh? that was his criticism of nietzsche...i can't believe you didn't understand that.
...that's why i said "but" - in order to signify i disagreed. And Being and Time is his only Kantian book, his later philosophy attacks much of what you've been arguing.
I don't accept Heideggar as a whole. I just referenced his defence of metaphysics as a valid field of inquiry (according to him, using his phenomenological method). And the statement was not meant directed against your on Nietzsche but merely the problem with destroying metaphysics - Heideggar is utterly opposed to that.
Heidegger's talk of metaphysics is talk of language and questions. Ontology isn't meta-anything. Fundamental ontology is what it is predicated as, fundamental and not an extracted view.
I would highly disagree. Nevertheless, it just seems you like to assert it, so I don't see how I can respond. Metaphysics is perfectly acceptable and I see no reason it is not. The very work of Heideggar was to being to revive the study of metaphysics in contemporary philosophy. That was the essence of phenomenology as well, in a manner of speaking.
I am seeking the truth, O Father; I am not affirming it. O my God, direct and rule me.
...Who can say that there is only time present because the other two do not exist? Or do they also exist; but when, from the future, time becomes present, it proceeds from some secret place; and when, from times present, it becomes past, it recedes into some secret place? For where have those men who have foretold the future seen the things foretold, if then they were not yet existing?
I wonder if logic is reducible to an intense grammar.
"God" has lots of meaning, just not metaphysical. I think this is why Heidegger called Nietzsche the culmination of Christian Metaphysics, and its necessary end. I too think of Nietzsche as a sort of hyper-christian, and myself too.
This is armchair philosophy with a vengeance. Not everything is a posteriori; nor is the contrary the same as a counterpoint: something cannot be and be at the same time and in the same relationship.
RobHinkforth 1 year ago
this guy looks sooo baked...
;d
666norton420 1 year ago
great thoughts man! very impressing!
ibster8 1 year ago
When you say "god" do you mean the transcendent energy source manifest in everything (unity) the consciousness that IS you and me beyond/within/manifest as tangible form, or do you believe in some mythical character or intelligent designer out there somewhere?
davidspoo 2 years ago
O, boy, I don't know about your philosophy, but you sure look hot in that undershirt!
And do you know that there is a certain aspect of philosophy in this as well... I don't mean to detract from your intellectual speculation, but I like how you unconsciously caress yourself while your are speaking! Perhaps Merleau-Ponty has something to say about how we can love our own body as an object while subjectively experiencing it?
You embody philosophy for me in a most sensual manner...
daveryan20 2 years ago
It would be cool to write a paper on the contrasts of Martin Luther and Martin Buber. You think? You could call the paper "Luther Buber." Ahg, at least I thought it was funny.
Btw, you look very tired and out of it here but it's a compliment since you're still very thoughtful/intelligent in your thoughts. It shows a strong mind. Okay, I think I suck up too much. :-P
JasonOnEarth 3 years ago
And I guess you could even add Martin Luther, Jr. Then you could call it "Luther Buber Luther." Okay, I'm officially tired here. Oops. lol
JasonOnEarth 3 years ago
Logic requires words for interaction: Sound Medicine is presented with support from the IU Medical Group, the clinical practice of the Indiana University School of Medicine Faculty physicians; The Lilly Clinic, where healthy volunteers help develop new medicines; and Clarian, with its Call to Change to a healthier lifestyle.
kapazas2002 4 years ago
were you blazed when you made this?
jkuzjkuz 4 years ago
lol, he may have been tired or perhaps high on the ganja. But either way, I think he did a good job, considering. Correct? We all love ya, Matthew.
JasonOnEarth 3 years ago
watching it again i was thinking how many theological writers and philosophers were influenced by Nietzsche the atheist. I think it makes sense that God as metaphysical has lost meaning, but perhaps there is a rebirth of "God" in Ontology...I have to read Buber. Shestov, Levinas, and Marion are good too...they talk about this.
atheologica 4 years ago
I think another interesting place for God in philosophy would be the rediscovery of Thomistic metaphysics under the modern analytics and in phenomenological study. Stein, Anscombe, Haldane, Maritain, Gilson, Wippel, Sokolowski, all come to mind.
stmichael71 4 years ago
There is no metaphysics. Metaphysics is a failed attempt of routing out ontology. I'm familiar with Aristotle's views, but then Aristotle neglected Ontology by being a metaphysician.
atheologica 4 years ago
Your terms are incoherent. Ontology is the same word used in modern thought to refer to "metaphysics." And if you think metaphysics impossible, go read Heideggar.
stmichael71 4 years ago
I've read Heidegger, and I've read his critique of Nietzsche's words that being is but a whisp or vapor of reality.
I take a lot from Heidegger, but not his claim that metaphysics is just left empty and never really gone. Of logical necessity, to which metaphysics and not ontology can apply, there is no need for metaphysics itself.
it is staunchly un-heideggerian of you to say these two words mean the same thing and refer to one another, they have more meaning than merely that!
atheologica 4 years ago
That is not Heideggar's claim at all. Heideggar's entire task is to rejuvenate the study of metaphysics - the preamble, I believe, of Being and Time is precisely on why metaphysics (aka, ontology) are valid disciplines. And, yes, they do mean the same thing. Look up both in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy if you don't believe me.
stmichael71 4 years ago
duh? that was his criticism of nietzsche...i can't believe you didn't understand that.
...that's why i said "but" - in order to signify i disagreed. And Being and Time is his only Kantian book, his later philosophy attacks much of what you've been arguing.
atheologica 4 years ago
I don't accept Heideggar as a whole. I just referenced his defence of metaphysics as a valid field of inquiry (according to him, using his phenomenological method). And the statement was not meant directed against your on Nietzsche but merely the problem with destroying metaphysics - Heideggar is utterly opposed to that.
stmichael71 4 years ago
there is no metaphysics to be destroyed anymore.
Heidegger's talk of metaphysics is talk of language and questions. Ontology isn't meta-anything. Fundamental ontology is what it is predicated as, fundamental and not an extracted view.
atheologica 4 years ago
I would highly disagree. Nevertheless, it just seems you like to assert it, so I don't see how I can respond. Metaphysics is perfectly acceptable and I see no reason it is not. The very work of Heideggar was to being to revive the study of metaphysics in contemporary philosophy. That was the essence of phenomenology as well, in a manner of speaking.
stmichael71 4 years ago
=P i've had a feast picking apart bones! - the first tenet of all philosophy!
atheologica 4 years ago
I can't find the Augustine quote I'm thinking of - from a sermon - i have it in a book somewhere? talks about the sound of words and time...
radiofriendly 4 years ago
"What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know." that the one you're talking about?
redliterocket4 4 years ago
I'm not sure. Augustine... he's a winner.
radiofriendly 4 years ago
I am seeking the truth, O Father; I am not affirming it. O my God, direct and rule me.
...Who can say that there is only time present because the other two do not exist? Or do they also exist; but when, from the future, time becomes present, it proceeds from some secret place; and when, from times present, it becomes past, it recedes into some secret place? For where have those men who have foretold the future seen the things foretold, if then they were not yet existing?
radiofriendly 4 years ago
"mystery" is too comprehensible.
I wonder if logic is reducible to an intense grammar.
"God" has lots of meaning, just not metaphysical. I think this is why Heidegger called Nietzsche the culmination of Christian Metaphysics, and its necessary end. I too think of Nietzsche as a sort of hyper-christian, and myself too.
atheologica 4 years ago