Heidegger

Jud quotes Russell:

> If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot
> revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to
> disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too
small
> to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on
> to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable
> presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be
thought to
> be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were
> affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and
instilled
> into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence
> would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions
> of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier
> time. It is customary to suppose that, if a belief is widespread, there must
> be something reasonable about it.
>
> Bertrand Russell.

Uhmmm, [referring to Russell’s last sentence above] like belief in:

the *sole* existence {crossed out} of material {crossed out} causal
{crossed out} ever-self-changing {crossed out} uniquely-individual
{crossed out} objects {crossed out}?¶

[i.e., *nothing else* {crossed out} exists, really {crossed out} …]

I mean, without the crossings-out, the statement above is widely held (a
widespread belief) amongst empiricist-positivists, commonsense members and
scientists (for example).

¶ All the above crossed out terms crossed out because presumably themselves
‘non-existent’ (according to eliminativism: “abstractions”, “fictions”,
“lies”, etc) and thus ‘unreasonable’ or just plain non-sense (if taken
seriously, which we must because we are presumably talking philosophy
(deadly serious speech) and not commonsense chatter/banter or widespread
belief or sophistic (clever-dickery), etc).

Should one (qua philosopher) hesitate to believe that widespread-believed
statement above concerning *sole existence*? And thus end up
requiring/inspiring the attentions of psychiatrists and
eliminativist-therapists (the new inquisitors?)? At what point do the
crossings-out cross themselves out leaving nothing of the widespread-belief
statement stated? Nothing about nothing [that exists {crossed out}]?

regards

michaelP

Posted on Sunday, February 4th, 2007 at 10:20 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback