Heidegger

The present messages with the accompanying transmutation of verbs into abstract nouns and gerunds and Platonistically inspired existential sentential templates is so patently ludicrous when viewed from a semantic, ontological or philosophical point of view, that I experience great difficulty in summoning up the mental energy even to read them in the serious manner which all contributions deserve. The emergence of some death-trekking transcendentalist taking a short break from comporting himself along the yellow-brick road towards death to claim that there exist entiatic nominata which correspond to these abstract referenda just makes me yawn.
If it weren’t for the philosophical damage that they do, one might even welcome these illogicalities as heaven-sent, comedic routines, pantomime-parts-of-speech sent as a knockabout intermezzi in the Heideggerian opéra bouffe, to brighten up the boredom of interminably meaningless transcendentalist tracts and pseudo-psychological drivel
My critique is the general one of an increasing number of philosophers and scientists, but that is not to say that I don’t recognise the usefulness of many hypostatisations in natural language and in ordinary communication at street level.
Away from the university or philosophical discussion I use them myself in this way all the time, and you will find my writings peppered with metaphor, for they are so damn difficult and handy as communicative short-cuts to avoid in natural language. And yes, once in a while its good to relax. It’s good fun to let one’s analytical hair down and visit the philosophical theme park - THE Land of Let’s Pretend, which is engendered by such crude reificationwherein the metaphysical Munchkins abide, and its fun to go along for the ride on the transcendentalist roller-coaster with the screaming Heideggerians in their kiss-me-quick hats, holding tight to some candy-floss of metaphysical nonsense and be a kid again.
But now such cheap and cheerful ontological yobbish fun has invaded philosophy itself like some metastasising cancer, surely it is time to take stock of the situation? For philosophers to engage with these nonsenses gravely and employ them with a straight face when addressing psychology, ontology, sociology or matters scientific or philosophical importance I find utterly incomprehensible.
To reify is to ‘thingify’: to treat an abstraction as a material thing. I find such behaviour most unscholarly and unprofessional – the equivalent of skinhead-culture spilling over into the domain of serious philosophy. Reificational Regards,
Jud Evans.
Personal Website. http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac…

Posted on Tuesday, June 26th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback