Heidegger

Jud spake this recently:

“If anyone can prove that anything other than material objects exist…”

But, Jud, you have a million times defined in a straight-forwardly dogmatic
way your notion of what exists (existents, beings) as being nothing but and
only “material objects”; thus because of your definition (setting the
limits), no-one could possibly “prove” otherwise. It is this religious (no
inverted commas) conviction-cum-belief of yours: ‘that which exists =
material objects exclusively’ that makes most discussions on the subject
redundant (just like attempted discussions with Jehovah’s Witnesses). And I
am bearing in mind that by “material objects” you include the energetic
(e.g., quanta of electromagnetic radiation, photons) and the forceful (e.g.,
gravity as gravitons) in and as material objects. For example, no-one to my
cognisance has actually concretely suggested that “reality” is itself a
concrete material object (like a “banana” or a vaulting meteorite or the mud
on my shoe: the things only and exclusively the like of which your
philosophy says exist); or for that matter [sic], that “material” or
“object” or both are actually concrete material objects… {neither
word/concept “material” and “object”} actually have material objects as
their nominata, thus their nominata do not exist for you (your philosophy),
thus you are immediately in a philosophical quandary for speaking seriously
(philosophically) of that which can not and do not exist for your
philosophy… That is: you cannot possibly mean (seriously) what you say,
thus we cannot possibly seriously take you for being serious.

regards

michaelP

Posted on Monday, September 3rd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback