Lifespan is the hand of God

Sort:
darkunorthodox88
Optimissed wrote:

He helped muddle things up fairly nicely, as a reaction to the fake philosophy of logical positivism, which had come just before. And nothing he wrote was really wrong, so many people will find Heidegger inspiring. Which can mean he wasn't awful as a philosopher, except maybe to those of us who have clearer minds.

Heidegger became so famous because he allowed lesser thinks to think what was (with good reason) forbidden territory. The middle existence which is not to be discussed.

You want a great thinker, stick to first principles metaphysics, like Bradley and Whitehead or even further back like Schelling.  Heidegger is a dead end.

He gives himself permission to describe the state of being DASEIN but then whenever he is to face exceptions, he merely labels those exceptions "a deficient state of Dasein " . Its just terrible lol


darkunorthodox88
Optimissed wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

He helped muddle things up fairly nicely, as a reaction to the fake philosophy of logical positivism, which had come just before. And nothing he wrote was really wrong, so many people will find Heidegger inspiring. Which can mean he wasn't awful as a philosopher, except maybe to those of us who have clearer minds.

Heidegger became so famous because he allowed lesser thinks to think what was (with good reason) forbidden territory. The middle existence which is not to be discussed.

You want a great thinker, stick to first principles metaphysics, like Bradley and Whitehead or even further back like Schelling.  Heidegger is a dead end.

Yes and after the dead end of logical positivism and the fake certainty of those like Kant, it was probably just what was needed. Whitehead is fairly good. I don't agree with everything he proposes.

Schelling became entangled in squabbles with Fichte, who was another "lesser philosopher". He should have found a way to rise above that, if he was to be considered "great". Bradley was a good thinker who did not become "great" probably because of his neglect of empiricism at the expense of idealism. I think anyone who is to be regarded as "great" has to find a way to combine them.  But Whitehead approached it with the natural idea of "processes", which places empiricism in a way that's less dominated by a fixed idea of static or maybe even idealised entities. He was too close to Bertrand Russell for me, though. I should probably write something myself, if it isn't already too late.

Fichte was a "great",as was Bradley who was widely held as the greatest british philosopher since Hume. the only reason they never got higher price is because their systems are fairly exhaustive. If you accept their precepts ,there  really  isnt much left to do with metaphysics, i would even go far as to say that Fichte is the logical end of Descartes' cogito but never got the credit for it. Compare that to a figure like Hegel who gives himself the authority to derive wild speculations and calls it a product of the synthetic a priori. That is a figure that can feed a lifetime of scholarship.

Bradley was a radical empiricist just like James and Whitehead, so to say he neglected empiricism is ridiculous. 

“Our result so far is this. Everything phenomena is somehow real; and the absolute must at least be as rich as the relative. And, further, the Absolute is not many; there are no independent reals. The universe is one in this sense that its differences exist harmoniously within one whole, beyond which there is nothing. Hence the Absolute is, so far, an individual and a system but, if we stop here, it remains but formal and abstract. Can we then, the question is, say anything about the concrete nature of the system?

Certainly, I think, this is possible. When we ask as to the matter which fills up the empty outline, we can reply in one word, that this matter is experience. ...Sentient experience, in short, is reality, and what is not this is not real. We may say, in other words, that there is no being or fact outside of that which is commonly called psychical existence. Feeling, thought, and volition ...are all the material of existence, and there is no other material, actual or even possible. This result in its general form seems evident at once ...” (127) -Appearance and Reality

 

sndeww

i must have a fingernail then

darkunorthodox88
Optimissed wrote:

As a philosophy student, I heard of Bradley but that's the first time I read anything of his. I had only been reiterating the opinion of others. I critiqued it quickly, especially as this thread may not remain. An experienced philosophy lecturer, with PhD in philosophy, may choose to object to one or perhaps more of my criticisms of the passage but I think I could support my views adequately. The supposition that Bradley is not an empricist but an idealist couldn't be refuted, however. For every philosophy professor disagreeing with it (on idealistic grounds  ) I bet I could find ten who would agree. They aren't all perfect.

empiricism and idealism are not opposite views man. Berkeley, one of the 3 great british empiricists, was a a subjective idealist. 

I would like to know where you did graduate work in philosophy. Because with all due respect, you sound like a ranked amateur with only a superficial understanding of these topics.

a line like this gives it away  "(That's now understood to be wrong, in view of the developments of mathematics which have proven quantum phenomena to be real, among many other things, such as the constituent parts of molecules etc)". 

Here let me help you. "Radical empiricism" is a position first defined by James but was fairly vogue during the early 19th century. "It asserts that experience includes both particulars and relations between those particulars, and that therefore both deserve a place in our explanations."  This is the difference between old school empiricism and the empiricism of figures like James, Bosanquet, and Whitehead. Empiricism in this modern sense is a metaphysical thesis. empiricism and idealism are not even incompatible in the older sense of the term, but here experience refers to the furniture of the world, idealism here is in the Hegelian sense "the ideality of the finite".

your critique is pointless. This is a paragraph 100+ pages into his greatest work, where he establishes why phenomena isnt real and what must be real such that phenomena is neither real nor unreal but subordinate to the real. Critiquing it like it was a syllogism is asinine. I only quoted that to show that Bradley is through and through an empiricist in the radical empiricist sub-camp.


 

Mattew
miskit_mistake a écrit :

Unlike in french a demand is not a question in English.

Was that meant to be rude ?

Pulpofeira

Only explanatory I'd say.

Pulpofeira

Spanish, in the other hand, is really difficult. It took me about two or three years to start babbling it, and it was surrounded by it all the time!

DrSpudnik

I like the upside-down question marks that start a Spanish question. You don't need to wait to the end of the sentence to figure out what's going on.

Pulpofeira

The upside-down is the other one. grin.png

StumpyBlitzer

Religion is against general forums TOS. 

 

This forum topic has been locked