phaedrus

Ierrellus

To get beyond idea to being is a circular argument involving idea as being. Both being and idea are human experiences. Neither can be discussed among us humans without considering the idea of an idea. Pure being is as incomprensible as is pure thought. Likewise, there is no reason without motivation, hence "pure reason' is a meaningless phrase.

Reason has reasons!

I am still waiting to hear your listing of problems you find with Heidegger's explanations.

Why the bifurcation between "being" and "idea"? Cant being being be an idea? Why do you think "pure being" is incomprensible? Can there be no thoughts without motivation?

Reason has reasons, exactly, reflecting the dive into the nihilistic depths which could possibly be overcome by using the "practical" ballast (in some people's view it could be viewed as hypocrisy as well)

JP

Ierrellus

phaedrus:

Again, I am not averse to most of Heidegger's ideas. In fact I used his concept of dread as an explanation of the substance of certain mythologies in a response to your post. I find, personally, however, that his dismay over philosophical bifurcation of Dasein and thinking reflects a deeper, existential rift between subject and object. He could have discovered such in any ancient writings other than those of preSocratic Greeks.

The human dilemma is consciousness of self. This does not have to lead to nihilism, nor does it have to assume that science is about the job of thingizing reality. Science is moot in such debates. The idea that science cannot rectify a sense of Dasein with a sense of oneness of all that is is nonsense. Being, becoming and belonging do not have to be at odds with any utilizations of logic.

Ierrellus

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

Ierrellus

All:

I am closing this thread because I have found what I was looking for. Let me offer here my heartfelt appreciation to those who have seen beyond a simple design a probability of creative expression. All criticisms teach me.

Please join me in further attempts to "break on through to the other side."

Ierrellus

phaedrus

Ierrellus

Again, I am not averse to most of Heidegger's ideas.

So I wonder why you brought him up when you said....IMHO, however, I fail to see how hermeneutics, a tool for recognizing the personal in identifications, lives up to Heidegger's search for ontological reality. You are yet to substantiate that statement and all i have heard so far is zilch and beating around the bush.

In fact I used his concept of dread as an explanation of the substance of certain mythologies in a response to your post.

Dread ? You used that to respond to my post? Must have missed it or must have got lost in the goal post shifting

I find, personally, however, that his dismay over philosophical bifurcation of Dasein and thinking reflects a deeper, existential rift between subject and object. He could have discovered such in any ancient writings other than those of preSocratic Greeks.

Or he could have looked towards the eastern hemisphere for some guidance on the issue

The human dilemma is consciousness of self. This does not have to lead to nihilism, nor does it have to assume that science is about the job of thingizing reality. Science is moot in such debates. The idea that science cannot rectify a sense of Dasein with a sense of oneness of all that is is nonsense. Being, becoming and belonging do not have to be at odds with any utilizations of logic

Again we drift in a ocean of words without any anchor whatsoever around the questions posed. What are required are answers i think or a "focused" discussion not quasi-pontification without any substantiation.

Anyhows, I find you interstting...so maybe I will pursue you around for a while

JP