Heidegger

In a message dated 12/10/2008 21:40:24 GMT Standard Time, _Saicho at aol.com_
(mailto:Saicho@aol.com)

writes: Richard:

A few posts back Joe brought up the issue of the effect on someone who must
confront the eliminativist position regarding the non-existence of *love,*
and other such terms. If a person says: *I love you.,* the recipient might say:
*There is no such thing as love – it does not exist.*

Jud:
1. Nobody with a shred of empathy would say such a silly thing to someone
professing love for them. It is possible as a joke with someone who would grasp
its meaning - but highly unlikely.

2. To deny (rightly) that the abstraction *love* exists somewhere in the
world is absolutely correct. Where is it to be found? Internalised in a wedding
ring? Within the pages of a woman’s magazine of romantic fiction?

Richard:
A similar situation would occur if an engineer, working on a complex
problem involving Force, Mass, Heat, Velocity, etc. was told not to waste his time,
since none of those parameters exist. Herein lies the crux of the
disagreement regarding Jud’s position.

Jud:
Herein lies not the crux of the disagreement regarding Jud’s position - for
it is a misrepresentation of that position.
Loving lovers exist, but not the *love* which they profess. *Love* is an
existential modality or way in which a lover and his beloved exist - whilst
they are in a mode of love, not the non-existent reification of *amorousness*
communicated by the word *Love.*

Richard:
Words and concepts are ordinarily involved in practical utility, not in
ontological surety. We humans have built a vast system of technology,
architecture, infrastructure, transportation, gadgets, etc. through the use of words and
symbols and in none of these enterprises are matters of ontology nor should
they be.

Jud:
Theme One.
I thought I had finally nailed this one, when in my dissertation, I
deliberately divided it up into a Theme One and Theme Two, which, though they
gravitate separately around the same theoretical axis, are conjoined in the
conclusion into a syncretised, unitive hypothesis. Both of the hypotheses are
outlined in an introductory exposition of the thematic nature of the paper which
follows and then extrapolated separately in the appropriate theme. Theme One
addresses my main (and older) more ontologically linguistic-based interest which
is concerned with what exists and what does not and how such differences are
expressed. Inasmuch as Theme One is concerned, as I have said many times I am
not particularly concerned with the practical utility, convenience or
fictional usefulness of reification - I am already aware of its *practical utility*
- but *practical utility* is not the main focus of Theme One.

Theme Two.
It is in Theme Two where I turn my attention and interest to *practical
utility* and the historico-linguistic advantages, (which still exist, though
some have now become disadvantageous rather than preferential) which the use of
such reificational shot-cuts bestows (with a concomitant diminution of
reality-connectedness) And (in case you ask) no, I do not believe that *reality
exists either. Only the human who is connected to real objects and the real
objects which are so connected exist. As far as my secondary project is
concerned - I characterise reification as being what I believe to be the genetic
pre-disposition to reify as a practical Darwinian selection mechanism. Such a
linguistic facility must favour the rapid communication of information by
carpet-bombing an addressee with the netted contents of non-specific fictive
universalisms which convey *the general idea* rather than the detailed specifics in
a necessarily quick exchange of information.

Richard:
I am certain that if Jud was stopped by a policeman and told that he was
speeding, Jud would not smile and tell the officer that there is no such thing
as speed, or speeding. [Or then, he might!]

Jud:
I never speed in my car officer - there are too many speed cameras about
this side of the pond.

Cheers,

Jud

**************

Posted on Sunday, October 19th, 2008 at 6:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback