Existing and/or Being?
November 9th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Existing and/or Being? :: Existing and/or Being?** :: Translating ‘Dasein’ into English :: Oddly Enough
Bernx at aol.com wrote:
>According to C.G. Jung, THINKING refers to the faculty of rational
>analysis; of understanding and responding to things through the
>intellect, the “head” so to speak. Thinking means connecting ideas in
>order to arrive at a general understanding. The Thinking-type often
>appears detached and unemotional. The Scientist and the Philosopher
>are examples of the “thinking type”, which is found more commonly in
>men.
>FEELING is the interpretation of things at a value- level, a
>”heart”-level rather than a “head”-level. Feeling evaluates, it
>accepts or rejects an idea on the basis of whether it is pleasant or
>unpleasant. According to Jung this is the emotional personality type,
>and occurs more frequently in women.
>note: The polar complement to DENKEN IST GEFUHL.
>Neither may be substuted for or equated with Experience because in its
>generality experience cannot be assigned as a psychological function,
Bernard,
yes, it’s true that Jung defined thinking in a way that distinguishes it
from feeling; but, we can’t begin to interpret Descartes (or Heidegger’s
case against the Cogito) by assuming that Descartes defined thinking
*only* the way as Jung (and some other psychologists) defined thinking
(which I will call thinking in the narrow sense).
Descartes needed a term that includes the entire range of subjective
experiences; because, for purposes of cogito-style arguments, feeling
would work as well as thinking (in the narrow sense), intuiting, sensing
or whatever. ‘I feel; therefore, I am’ is just as good as ‘I think
(narrow sense); therefore, I am’.
Descartes, for better or for worse, chose ‘thinking’ as the term he’d
use to refer to the entire range of subjective experiences. I’ll call
this use thinking (in the widest possible sense). thinking in this wide
sense is used as we might use ‘experiencing’ today.
translating ‘cogito; ergo, sum’ as ‘I experience; therefore, I am’
better captures Descartes’ intent and exposes the fallacy behind the
complaints that Nietzsche and Heidegger make concerning ‘I think (narrow
sense); therefore, I am’. [I posted about these recently under the
subject ‘Axis of Error’.]
what do you think about Heidegger’s case against the Cogito — does its
force diminish when confronting ‘I experience; therefore, I am’ instead
of ‘I think; therefore, I am’? if so; then, is that because I have a
stronger argument or because I have a better translation of cogito;
ergo, sum?
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
