Thursday, February 10, 2011

Apparitions of not Being Pithy on moving beyond moving on from diachronicity.
If we are to understand "the real" that happens completely on its own without reference to anything, then this will first need to be understood at the expense of temporal dying which finds its spiritualization through Heidegger. If the idea of Diachronicity is a "time" that happens completely independent of human subjectivity, then the idea of "time" itself will be something different than the explanation of "time" given by Heidegger where "time" is the "who" of subjectivity, and ultimately the "who" of Dasein, meaning "time" is absolutely the structure of Dasein, and nothing else. This circumscription of time by Heidegger that has certainly held a strong sway over philosophy in the 20th century into the 21st century has kept philosophy from looking past its veiled mystical proclivities.
I find a lot of good stuff in there. I also find a lot of very questionable stuff in there. So much so that, unfortunately, I come away from it not wanting to bother to sort things out. Instead, I see it as one more pissing contest in the name of nominalism.

Nominalists are from Mars?
I'm always switching between generously considering that Nominalists ask penetrating questions, and that they're annoying pests.
I can see why the nominalists find it hard to take seriously a philosophy that admits that its central concern, beyng, "proximally and for the most part does not show itself."

To argue that is at least better than traditional metaphysics with its two-world/realms' commitment probably does not carry much weight against the long tradition of quantitative analysis, where "show me" requires measured material evidence.

In the blog you cited, I saw a few places where it seemed to me he was taking a cheap shot, if not an actual equivocation. I did not sense dishonesty, just an unwillingness to state the opposition's argument carefully. That might well be because MH ain't easy to distill.

But I wondered if it might suggest that MH's QCT is rubbing some sore spots for philosophy of science, which had already been wounded by former advocates like Quine. If so, then as the infamous GWBush said, I say, "Bring 'em on."
Heidegger's a metaphysical Realist then, ala Frege?

Funny, you wouldn't tell that, at least easily, reading say his discussions of...Anxiety, Care, Death..Dasein--, so forth.

Usually the metaphysical realist claims logical/mathematical abstract entities exist, mind independently. so forth (as you probably are aware). It seems many ..in continental tradition consider reductionists/nominalists such as Carnap or Ayers the ...logical positivists. Yet the earlier analytical types--Frege and Russell, for instance--were really mo' akin to platonists (tho not of the groovy parisian sort). Hilbert had a slight analytical-realist side as well, IMHE (tho....that's a different kettle of fish).

Im not sure what the proper classification of MH is (" existentialist" apparently irks some) -Heideggerist.
Classify MH as thinker. Anything more specific is debatable.
You might want to take a look at Wm Koch's post on his blog (http://williamkochsphilosophyblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-heideggers-realist-historicism.html)
from the past December where he explains his designation for MH as "Realist historicist."
Actually Im against naive nominalists, Enk. Or naive Darwinists, materialists, atheists, etc.

Such as Searle. He regularly launches into his "biological naturalist" schtick. It's like...here's Searle again, sucking off the UC conservative scientists. At times I admire Searle's...clarity or something, but it's pretty basic stuff.

Quine was a strange primate but at least granted ontological relativity, but I think by the 60s was ....as much an Uncle meat-materialist as a Carnap.

Yet I don't think that means....ok, approve of the non-reductionist continentalists/PoMo, or the Rorty types. Or Hegel n Marxistas, who might be......no mas. Not sure...what it means. Frege? Pretty sparse ontology there.

Neither a nominalist or Realist be.
No thanks on Koch.

I don't get historical process from Heidegger, either, at least the Hegelian sort. Why not existentialist?? That was the original classification. SZ has long discussions about, like, Death. Existentialism 101
After WWII existentialist came to mean those left-bank Sartre spouting types, and Sartre's was an attempt to shoehorn elements of B&T back into a Cartesian subject/object schema. So, from Letter on Humanism onwards, MH didn't want to be associated with existentialism. That didn't keep MH from being included in countless intoductions to existentialism, which is where I first came across him.
Yes, but it wasn't just the Cartesianism. At least initially there were hints of humanism, and...dare we say psychology to SZ (and...death awareness). A concern with freedom and choice. Thrownness.

So it's like...do you mean the SZ MH, or after the "Kehre"?? (at which point--at least QCT--there does seem to be ontology, return to the pre-socratics, etc)

I don't think they're that far apart, and for that matter, Heidegger went out of his way initially to befriend Sartre after the war. Not that I defend Sartre the person (or really, french existentialism, which was rather more literary and ....noirish than later Heidegger). But.... once Germany apres WWII, got back on track, MH moved away from him.
The turn away from Sartre was quicker than that. Here's Heidegger's letter to Sartre from Oct. 1945, trying to get himself noticed. Within a year MH was distancing himself.
Well, Res Ipsa Loquitur--.

"For the first time, I have met an independent thinker, who has reached deep into the field of experience starting from that which I think of. Your book shows an immediate understanding of my philosophy, such as I have never found before."

I'm not disagreeing exactly, Enk., and defer to your MH scholarship. He does not agree to JPS's point on Exi. as Humanism. However the earlier MH of SZ does seem to share some concerns with JPS (as with the Death issue, which MH claims JPS corrected him on)--later MH is quite different.

And they were both lapsed catholics, right??--(tho' JPS def. a city boy, and MH, not so much.) That's existentialism in a sense--Catholicism, sans Dieu
Post a Comment

<< Home
For when Ereignis is not sufficient.

Appropriation appropriates! Send your appropriations to enowning at gmail.com.

View mobile version