Heidegger

—– Original Message —–
From: “Bakker, R.B.M. de”

One can measure anything. But whether it makes sense to measure, has
clearly ontological implications. For instance if one uses dogs, one
wants to say: i am over, you are under, and the dog is between. So you
are less than a dog.

====================
“. man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but when separated from law
and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more
dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by
intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if
he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of animals..”
(Aristotle, Politics I.2)

ontological implications?
====================

That cannot possibly be right according to Heidegger’s own explication of
how ontology grounds science. He doesn’t say that scientific calculation
itself betrays a commitment to positivist ontology, but only that the
treatment of scientific/calculative thinking as philosophically primordial
betrays such.

But that is what happens. We only want truths, and not truth. But truths
need truth to be true, otherwise they become illusions. Their illlusory
character thuogh is not of themselves, but inherited from their
foundation,
which is no longer there.

It is therefore perfectly appropriate to conduct scientific
studies and polls on human beings,

It is therefore the most dangerous thing to go on using pseudo-science
on human beings.

=====================
Hence the need to ground the claim of “pseudo,” beyond merely your saying
that it’s “pseudo” because of its threat to your (denied) politics.
=====================

as long as these are not treated as an
analysis of Being of beings - and I never treated them that way. Human being
can show itself *scientifically* too - otherwise, anthropology and sociology
would not be sciences based on empirical data.

They are no longer. One can prove what one wishes.
One can measure anything, but that does not always, mostly not,
lead to knowledge. When not it is fake knowledge, and the transmitter
fake. So there are clearly ontological implications in all ontic
dealings.
For instance if one uses dogs, one wants to say (inflict): i am over, you
are under, and the dog is between. And you are less than a dog.

=====================
Another:

“.brutishness is a less evil than vice, . for it is not that the better part
has been perverted, as in man,-they have no better part. .for a bad man will
do ten thousand times as much evil as a brute.” (Aristotle, Nich. Eth.
VII.6)

ontological impications?
=====================

But i do not wish to discuss this matter, because the discussion is the
real
fake. Now individuals are convicted for the fraud of this entire war,

==================
“my protests … do not flatter any anti-american position, or any current
political entity.” (Rene de Bakker, 5/10/06)
==================

which
is just the last of many and all based on deception. You want to get out
of
that, but you brought yourself into it. One better thinks before acting,
instead
of killing the thinkers.
Those not doing, should no longer be allowed to use words like truth and
ontology. As Heidegger writes in 1935: language is the free, selfevident
and
UNHARMED (capitalized by H) instrument for man now. But that is not what
language IS at all. It is possible though to degrade it like that. The
implication
then is total ontological confusion. Confirming thus Seinsverlassenheit.
We really
need Parmenides and Heraclitus to notice what we are in. More
specifically:
logos as dimension. Your scientific Aristotle reading threatens to
crumble too.

===================
Does that include the two above Aristotles?
===================

polls revealed, that Dutch youth is very happy. But i know they are not.
and i also know why they say such, because i know them. Another poll
revealed that youth is structurally tired. But one can see that too.
IN fact they are so down, that they can’t afford to say they are unhappy.
It’s a damned shame, and th epolling even worse. What a way to treat the
children
But they are not children, they are kids. And ‘kids’ = no problem.
To neglect this, and build one’s view and politics on the neglect, that
is
offered to the free individual as a good thing. But they are Hornvieh
them-
selves, made for deceiving. I see these children, i talk to them.

====================
Great, then I know how you can get past the problem that they “can’t afford
to say they are unhappy.” Ask them, If a foreign force invaded and occupied,
and imposed widespread slaughter, murder, rape, dispossession, and tyranny,
would life be:

1. Very good.
2. Quite good.
3. Quite bad.
4. Very bad.
5. Difficult to say.

I predict that they would suddenly be able to afford to say that they would
be unhappy.
====================

Posted on Wednesday, June 7th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback