"Your biggest fan: Stan" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-1h8TWWlx0
As for who you think understands language: Heideg is not not gar, but ger! The limitation of self self-study. On 23 Jan., 21:50, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok I have one thing that I must write. I will write it in capital > letters for emphasis: > > DO NOT ASSUME THAT YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND HEIDEGGAR! > > Ok, got that off my chest. Thanks. Sorry for screaming. > > If you just try to understand your immediate experience as you read > these philosophers and relate what they say to what you experience you > have a good chance. It is understanding of your experience that is > most important - not the understanding of the philosophers. They are > just a place to find ideas that might apply. > > My own opinion is that if you understand what Heideggar is saying you > will have in effect achieved what is called Satori in Zen albeit by > means of the intellect. It will not be a "purely intellectual" > understanding in the very limited sense but rather a breaking out of > the intellect and an experience of what will seem to have been > obvious. If it happens you will feel I think like "How could I have > missed it?". Being and what it means. Anyway. I caution you not to > believe that what he is saying is unapproachable or even all that > complicated. In a way, it is extraordinarily simple, even obvious. > Sartre can help in a way but only in that he describes the mistake > which is most often made that has nothingness as he says "lying at the > heart of being like a worm". Those are his words not mine and I think > from careful study of Heideggar and reflection on your own experience > you can conclude that he is wrong and - in a sense - even nothingness > is. I recommend the introduction of Being and Nothingness called "The > pursuit of being". > > You must reflect very carefully on your own experience. That is where > the answers are. Reading the books is good only when you can see how > they apply to any experience you have. Just lay in bed if you'd like, > stare at the ceiling, and really think about what *you* think about > what your experience means. > > You are right about Dennet of course. He is a waste. In fact once > Wittgenstein starts everything is again "forgotton" Heiddegar talks > about "forgetfullness of being" and it really happens. Anyway good > luck. I like the way you are assaulting the problem. You are my hero! > Someone who is actually trying to understand! It shows a kind of > courage and I hope you break the books out and the highlighter and > really study for a few years. I included Wittgenstein, Dennet and > Searle only so you can see where things are at now but they are not > really very aware of the problem (or perhaps Wittgenstein was but > concluded that it could or should not be written about) but the others > just don't get it I think. They misunderstand language I think. They > think of it in a way that completely denatures it to my mind. They > miss the meaning of meaning in a sense. > > Skipping all the way to the end I think you will find that the basis > for your value is the same as for all of ours and that life is so .... > well... wonderful sounds like such a cheap and unexpressive > word.....Most of all you can find out - in a sense - why!. Good luck. > Let me leave it at that. Good luck! I am your fan! > > On Jan 18, 11:30 am, Twirlip <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jan 18, 12:54 pm,Justintruth<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I think that Husserl's main contribution was to define [phenomenology]. > > > It will be difficult to interpret [Heidegger] or Sartre without the ideas > > > in his book "Ideas" > > > I was afraid of that. More generally (and I think this might be a > > point of more general interest to other members), one reason why I > > have not engaged in any formal or systematic study of philosophy is my > > fear that I have no chance of understanding Heidegger, say, not only > > because of the idiosyncrasy of his use of a foreign language (I did > > study German in school, and it was one of the few subjects I enjoyed, > > but I have forgotten almost all of it, so I will probably have to rely > > on translations) - this problem is perhaps especially acute with > > Heidegger (on the other hand, I have my own deep dissatisfaction with > > ordinary language, so I might have some sympathy for his > > idiosyncrasies) - but more simply and more generally, because he is > > building on the work of his predecessors, going back for millennia, > > even explicitly (in Heidegger's case, again) to the Presocratics. > > > Where does one stop? Or rather, where does one start? (I almost > > expect a Heideggerian answer to that!) > > > It's not like studying mathematics, where, as Dieudonne (I think) and > > many others have observed, the later stuff kind of subsumes a lot of > > the earlier stuff, and makes it more or less possible (in my case > > less, but never mind!) to absorb a good chunk of the central history > > of the subject. > > > Or is it? Is philosophy progressive, in any even remotely analogous > > way? > > > > It is true that [Heidegger] and Sartre, deal with being and Husserl sort > > > of missed it, > > > That rings a bell, from that article I faintly remember reading. I > > very dimly recall getting the impression that Husserl thought of > > phenomenology too literally as a science; but of course I may be > > getting this totally wrong. > > > > but the application of > > > phenomenology to ontology was really what gave them their > > > breakthroughs – and that’s where your breakthrough can occur too – > > > Husserl’s reduction gave them access to the material they published.. > > > I think I understand. > > > > Vam might have some recommended reading from India. Not sure how he > > > got tuned in but I bet you dollars to donuts he has some very > > > interesting source material. > > > Yes, I don't know any Eastern philosophers by name (and some of them, > > I seem to recall, are anonymous), but mention of the likes of > > Schopenhauer and Jung kind of brings them in by implication (OK, so > > arguing like that could justify anything!), and people have seen > > connections between Meister Eckhart and Eastern philosophy, too. > > > > You might consider this reduced list : > > > Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Kierkegaard, [Nietzsche], Jung, Husserl, > > > Heidegger, Sartre, Wittgenstein, Popper, Denning, > > > Denning? Typo? (See below.) > > > > Searle (Not sure Jung belongs there. Have you seen his « Red Book yet ?) > > > I have a strong sense that Jung will be very important to me, and I > > don't want to draw too hard-and-fast a dividing line between > > "philosophy" and "psychology", especially as (I believe) a lot of > > what /should/ be philosophy has been pushed into the "psychology" > > category. > > > I hadn't even heard of the Red Book (just the period in his life when > > it was written). Thanks for telling me about it! > > > > I would study them in this order though : (Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre), > > > OK, I'll see what I can do about that. It's all very daunting! > > > > (Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas), > > > Although I'm totally ignorant of Aquinas, I know that Plato is a > > delight to read (and mind-spinningly confusing and unnerving), and I > > have Aristotle's ./Nicomachean Ethics/ to hand (although I have never > > opened it). > > > > (Kant), > > > Oh Gawd, Kant! Who's scarier, him or Heidegger? Anyway, I have an > > abridged edition of /The Critique of Pure Reason/ (ed. Humphrey > > Palmer), /Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals/ (two copies: tr. > > Ellington, tr. Paton), and /Perpetual Peace and Other Essays/ (tr. Ted > > Humphrey), from which I have actually read and enjoyed (a long time > > ago, possibly in another translation) "Idea for a Universal History > > with a Cosmopolitan Intent". > > > > (Kierkegaard, > > > I think I'm going to enjoy him, although I fancy his contemporary > > references might take some getting used to. > > > > [Nietzsche]), > > > I hate him! Must I? I suppose I must. Where should I start? (Sigh.) > > > > (Wittgenstein), > > > Also scary, and also not at all to my taste, in either the earlier or > > the later incarnation. But I suppose I've got to, sometime. (I did > > skim through his /Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics/, and > > found it mostly merely annoying, and not even very suggestive. My > > fault, I suppose.) Can I not start with thinkers I actually like, feel > > some affinity for? (I've been told that I resemble him. Perhaps > > that's why I don't like him.) > > > > (Jung), > > > Also difficult, of course, but vital for me. Have read a few things: / > > Synchronicity/, of course, and his autobiography, some easier popular > > books (/The Undiscovered Self/, /Modern Man in Search of a Soul./, > > maybe others, all of which I liked). Don't have any real idea where to > > start on a proper study. Don't really know what an archetype is ... > > > > (Popper, > > > Should be very pleasant - at least /The Open Society and its Enemies/ > > (and I've read his autobiography /Unended Quest/, and a few bits and > > pieces here and there). He should help me to keep my feet on the > > ground (with my head still in the clouds, if I can stretch, but at > > least in not the sand). > > > > Dennet, > > > Not that Daniel Dennett character? Must I read him? Really? Please > > tell me it's just a typo! > > > > Searle) > > > OK, he's fun, and pretty sensible (although not exactly in tune with > > my way of thinking). He should also help me to stay grounded. > > > > I would focus on ontology throughout. > > > The ontology of persons, or more generally? > > > > You won't be able to get through all of each category > > > :-) > > > > but after you get a feel for it you can move on and come back to fill in > > > detail. > > > > Who knows, maybe we will need to add you to the list if you ever can > > > write up what you find out! > > > I'd better get busy, then! Oh, dear, I'm so depressed, and I've got > > this terrible pain down all the diodes in my left side .. > > > > What's that phrase? "The unexamined life is scarcely worth living?" > > > I think I'm going to fail this examination. > > > > Oh, and one other thing to remember... you know what's wrong with just > > > "having a positive mental attitude"?...... Its just too > > > depressing...:) > > > :-) > > > > On Jan 18, 1:25 pm, Twirlip <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 18, 12:08 > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
