Heidegger

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

—–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
Van: heidegger-bounces at soca.ecu.edu.au
[mailto:heidegger-bounces@soca.ecu.edu.au]Namens Anthony Crifasi

Aristotle himself directly opposed physis to the theory of inertia:

“no movement can continue to infinity. For what cannot be can no more
come-to-be than be, and movement is a coming-to-be in one place from
another.” (On the Heavens 311b29-34)

That is why physis became no more.

Anthony, trees still root in the ground and grow upwards - against
the scientific truth you bring against Physics.

And moreover: Greek physis and aletheia collapsed long before
Galilei,
to make place for natura and rectitudo.

(it is essential not to hear a word like ‘collapsed’ mere
negatively)

=======================
First, both natura and physis are opposed to inertia - not by me, but by
both Aristotle and the medievals themselves. That’s not my doing - read
their own words (such as the quote above). So whatever distinction there is
between natura and physis makes no difference here - they are identical in
that regard … which in turn should make you question the supposed gap
between physis and natura. Philosophers often exaggerate differences in the
history of philosophy at the expense of similarities in order to support
their pet theories - or agendas.

Secondly, as if the moderns could not easily account for why trees root in
the ground and grow upwards, which is precisely why physis became no more -
modern physics could account for all that physis could account for, and
more. And if you think that this principle of efficiency is in turn a modern
invention, think again:

“The next question is whether the principles are two or three or more in
number. One they cannot be, for there cannot be one contrary. Nor can they
be innumerable, because, if so, Being will not be knowable: and in any one
genus there is only one contrariety, and substance is one genus: also a
finite number is sufficient, and a finite number, such as the principles of
Empedocles, is better than an infinite multitude; for Empedocles professes
to obtain from his principles all that Anaxagoras obtains from his
innumerable principles.” (Aristotle, Physics I.6)
=======================

btw how come that leaders, as long as they are ‘leading’, denie
nature,
and as soon as they are leader-off, turn into their dedicated
champions?
Adducing Poetin or Hu won’t help, because then we see the whole
deceptive
circle repeating itself in that other area: history. In order to
understand
the essential lying effective in every area today, it is necessary
to go
back to the distinction first made explicit by Aristotle (and then
to the
pre-Aristoteleans).

Or: physics will reign absolutely over a physis-less world. (as
Heidegger
pointed out, a physics without nature can only become destructive.)

Posted on Thursday, December 21st, 2006 at 5:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback