Heidegger

In a message dated 15/06/2008 12:12:17 GMT Standard Time,
artefact at t-online.de writes:

>
> in the total absence of any reality of any reality type; in the total
> absence of any existent of any mode of existence; in the total
> absence of any being of any mode of being; etc., — what asserts ‘I am
> self-aware’?
>
> Joe

ME:

I’ve already long since disposed of this as part of your so-called
Confession of Partial Ignorance, which has to become a Confession of Total
Ignorance to become philosophically interesting. Instead, since you assert
that something is not nothing, the next question is, what, precisely,
distinguishes nothing from something. Cf. Plato and Hegel. Skipping over
philosophical questions and shrink-wrapping them in symbols of logic which is
unquestionably taken as a basis for thinking is a philosophical program (cf..
Carnap) that has long since been given up under the pressure of the evidence
of the phenomena themselves.

Jud:
For once I agree with Dr.Fallacia. Such symbols of logic are merely (in
the doctor’s wonderfully appropriate term) - “shrink-wrapped,” reificative,
arbitrary signs (rather than employing more befitting definitional forms of
words.) Such transcendental toys are agreed upon by certain types of
metaphysicians (who often pose as positivist materialists) under the impression of
being *rigerous thinkers* to have an acceptable significance outside of a
semiotically-dependant obsessional coterie of metaphysical masonry on the make. It
all points to a fact that I noticed when I first became involved in
philosophy. The logico-semiotic approach to complicated ideas lies far beyond the
compass of such clinging, transparently oversimplified *capering* with
ontological profundity. The notorious existential quantifier (back to front
E-symbol) is the most unprofessional, idiotic, meaningless, obfuscational, thwackable
piñata in the whole of human thinking.

Cheers,

Jud

Posted on Sunday, June 22nd, 2008 at 6:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback