Peter Holmes: What is Fact.

[Atla]

Okay. then my final thought on the matter: Before I read Kant, Heidegger, and others I knew nothing of what they had to say and if someone told me what they had to say, I would have thought just as you do. There is no remedy for this but reading. Philosophy without Kant as a foundation in one way or another is like physics would be if you just sat there on a hill with a pen and paper looking around.

Nobody likes to hear this. The Critique of Pure Reason is very difficult to read. But if you don't read it, you will never understand the world philosophically well at all. Even the analytic philosophers have all read Kant extensively. He is to philosophy what Newton is to physics: a lot comes on the shoulders of Newton in physics, but Newton comes first.

It's a book. Why not just set time aside to read it? The internet is a massive resource for supplemental reading.

Well you shouldn't have projected your past self on me. I've puzzled over the workings of the human mind and its countless variations most of my life, mainly via introspection and psychology. I also underwent many strange states of mind that most people will never experience, and couldn't imagine. I think I know damn well that when we think we see the 'world', we always see the inside of our head, where this experience of the world is constructed. I also tried many techniques to fiddle with this experience of the world, try to make it better, a bit of fine-tuning.

I've also unified most or all relevant scientific knowledge for myself, and the result was that the Western dualistic school of thought is in general, a dead-end, anyway.

I also understood no-thing-ness, saw through the illusory nature of the ego, went through what Easterners call 'awakening to our true nature', and then the 'human awakening' after that, things like that. None of that was enough either, so then I went further, into shaky territory, but that's another story.

Now whenever I talk to someone who is into Kant, they always tell me to spend 2 years reading his Critique (I read a few pages in German but no thanks, I don't have time for this). But for some reason they can never point me to some new insight.

Instead they all seem to be in this limbo, where in some weird sense, they seem to think that their experience of the world is the same as the world. No, their experience of the world is their experience of the world, and it's impossible to get outside that, but it's just a part of the world, and there's nothing idealistic about that.

[odysseus]

Atla wrote
Instead they all seem to be in this limbo, where in some weird sense, they seem to think that their experience of the world is the same as the world. No, their experience of the world is their experience of the world, and it's impossible to get outside that, but it's just a part of the world, and there's nothing idealistic about that.

A final, final word then: Kant is not a waste of time. Ideas like this are not simple, and when you talk to some one looking for insight and enlightenment, what they say is just the tip of the iceberg. Underneath there is the transformative process that comes with the reading that is an experience, not an idea.

Philosophy is nothing if it is not transformative. Why not try Heidegger's Being and Time? H produces language that is intentionally not affixed to Kant and even Husserl who was his mentor. His wanted to make a clean break. I think he is the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.

But Being and Time is very difficult (though less so than Kant if you ask me). Most have an aversion to hard, dry reading like this, and this is the real inhibitor to an undertaking. But it is only in these that one can change one's structured thinking about the world.

Bu I am guessing you have read the first few pages of this as well and found it a waste of time. This goes nowhere.

[Atla]

Atla wrote
Instead they all seem to be in this limbo, where in some weird sense, they seem to think that their experience of the world is the same as the world. No, their experience of the world is their experience of the world, and it's impossible to get outside that, but it's just a part of the world, and there's nothing idealistic about that.

A final, final word then: Kant is not a waste of time. Ideas like this are not simple, and when you talk to some one looking for insight and enlightenment, what they say is just the tip of the iceberg. Underneath there is the transformative process that comes with the reading that is an experience, not an idea.

Philosophy is nothing if it is not transformative. Why not try Heidegger's Being and Time? H produces language that is intentionally not affixed to Kant and even Husserl who was his mentor. His wanted to make a clean break. I think he is the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.

But Being and Time is very difficult (though less so than Kant if you ask me). Most have an aversion to hard, dry reading like this, and this is the real inhibitor to an undertaking. But it is only in these that one can change one's structured thinking about the world.

Bu I am guessing you have read the first few pages of this as well and found it a waste of time. This goes nowhere.

Well you guessed right. This may sound weird, but I literally got nausea from Being and Time after like 2 pages. Why can't he just accept that there is no basis for ontology, not even in phenomenology? WHY the mentally weak, self-important, pathetic navelgazing and whining whining whining instead, just shoot the guy already if he's suffering so much.

[odysseus]

Atla wrote

Well you guessed right. This may sound weird, but I literally got nausea from Being and Time after like 2 pages. Why can't he just accept that there is no basis for ontology, not even in phenomenology? WHY the mentally weak, self-important, pathetic navelgazing and whining whining whining instead, just shoot the guy already if he's suffering so much.

It is a phenomenological ontology of hermeneutics. It is the best there is, the one wheel that rolls at the level of basic questions. After you work through Heidegger then you can make the critical move away from interpretatively inhibiting traditions into the light of what is actually happening when you say, "My, what a nice day," or "I'm computer programmer" which is the point of philosophy. The work we do at the level of basic assumptions about the world, is to make clear what it is that occurs when the world is taken at its foundation and questions lead to other questions and there is nothing there discovered to support knowledge claims of any kind.

When you are on the outside of this philosophy, you literally do not know the questions to even ask. You are stuck in the third grade in your interpretative abilities at this level of thinking. You may have a phd in physics, so don't get me wrong--its not about being intelligent at all! It's about how questions open up other questions you didn't know were there, and if someone tells you what they are flatly, directly, prior to any reading, they seem absurd. Try reading ANY existential philosophy and you will come up against the brick wall of opaque, inaccessible ideas. Kierkegaard's Conept of Anxiety will put you off the first page. Hegel? Forget it.

To me this is nothing more than saying gee it's too hard, I don't want to read this. All this about "pathetic navelgazing and whining whining whining" is just rationalizing your own distaste for hard work. Who is doing the whining here? You are. Any one can talk like this about anything. All it does is present the mere appearance of demeaning something.

If you want to whine properly, read Heidegger past those first pages, then onward. That would make it a critique, worthy of one's time.

[Advocate]

[quote=odysseus post_id=481283 time=1606154577 user_id=15698]
The work we do at the level of basic assumptions about the world, is to make clear what it is that occurs when the world is taken at its foundation and questions lead to other questions and there is nothing there discovered to support knowledge claims of any kind.

When you are on the outside of this philosophy, you literally do not know the questions to even ask. You are stuck in the third grade in your interpretative abilities at this level of thinking. You may have a phd in physics, so don't get me wrong--its not about being intelligent at all! It's about how questions open up other questions you didn't know were there, and if someone tells you what they are flatly, directly, prior to any reading, they seem absurd. Try reading ANY existential philosophy and you will come up against the brick wall of opaque, inaccessible ideas. Kierkegaard's Conept of Anxiety will put you off the first page. Hegel? Forget it.

To me this is nothing more than saying gee it's too hard, I don't want to read this. All this about "pathetic navelgazing and whining whining whining" is just rationalizing your own distaste for hard work. Who is doing the whining here? You are. Any one can talk like this about anything. All it does is present the mere appearance of demeaning something.

If you want to whine properly, read Heidegger past those first pages, then onward. That would make it a critique, worthy of one's time.
[/quote]

You misunderstand how language works. Every word has a meaning. There are no exceptions. Knowledge claims are simply that which continues to be the case when validated. We Know about the world that which evidence gives us Reason to believe. There is no transcendent definition of knowledge possible, nor would one be useful. Knowledge is justified belief, regardless of whether it fails later due to additional evidence not available now. My own philosophy is completely existential and completely transparent (or at least translucent until you understand which technical uses certain words require). There is no necessity of reading any of Hegel or Kierkegaard to develop a completely coherent existential philosophy including both metaphysics and epistemology, as is the way i have done it.

[Atla]

Atla wrote

Well you guessed right. This may sound weird, but I literally got nausea from Being and Time after like 2 pages. Why can't he just accept that there is no basis for ontology, not even in phenomenology? WHY the mentally weak, self-important, pathetic navelgazing and whining whining whining instead, just shoot the guy already if he's suffering so much.

It is a phenomenological ontology of hermeneutics. It is the best there is, the one wheel that rolls at the level of basic questions. After you work through Heidegger then you can make the critical move away from interpretatively inhibiting traditions into the light of what is actually happening when you say, "My, what a nice day," or "I'm computer programmer" which is the point of philosophy. The work we do at the level of basic assumptions about the world, is to make clear what it is that occurs when the world is taken at its foundation and questions lead to other questions and there is nothing there discovered to support knowledge claims of any kind.

When you are on the outside of this philosophy, you literally do not know the questions to even ask. You are stuck in the third grade in your interpretative abilities at this level of thinking. You may have a phd in physics, so don't get me wrong--its not about being intelligent at all! It's about how questions open up other questions you didn't know were there, and if someone tells you what they are flatly, directly, prior to any reading, they seem absurd. Try reading ANY existential philosophy and you will come up against the brick wall of opaque, inaccessible ideas. Kierkegaard's Conept of Anxiety will put you off the first page. Hegel? Forget it.

To me this is nothing more than saying gee it's too hard, I don't want to read this. All this about "pathetic navelgazing and whining whining whining" is just rationalizing your own distaste for hard work. Who is doing the whining here? You are. Any one can talk like this about anything. All it does is present the mere appearance of demeaning something.

If you want to whine properly, read Heidegger past those first pages, then onward. That would make it a critique, worthy of one's time.

Or maybe you're just an idiot when it comes to psychology, like most people are, and can't figure out things on your own. I have all the reason to believe that I already went beyond your Kant and Heidegger. You would have been more believable if you actually could have pointed out something I was wrong about.

[Atla]

Atla wrote

Well you guessed right. This may sound weird, but I literally got nausea from Being and Time after like 2 pages. Why can't he just accept that there is no basis for ontology, not even in phenomenology? WHY the mentally weak, self-important, pathetic navelgazing and whining whining whining instead, just shoot the guy already if he's suffering so much.

It is a phenomenological ontology of hermeneutics. It is the best there is, the one wheel that rolls at the level of basic questions. After you work through Heidegger then you can make the critical move away from interpretatively inhibiting traditions into the light of what is actually happening when you say, "My, what a nice day," or "I'm computer programmer" which is the point of philosophy. The work we do at the level of basic assumptions about the world, is to make clear what it is that occurs when the world is taken at its foundation and questions lead to other questions and there is nothing there discovered to support knowledge claims of any kind.

When you are on the outside of this philosophy, you literally do not know the questions to even ask. You are stuck in the third grade in your interpretative abilities at this level of thinking. You may have a phd in physics, so don't get me wrong--its not about being intelligent at all! It's about how questions open up other questions you didn't know were there, and if someone tells you what they are flatly, directly, prior to any reading, they seem absurd. Try reading ANY existential philosophy and you will come up against the brick wall of opaque, inaccessible ideas. Kierkegaard's Conept of Anxiety will put you off the first page. Hegel? Forget it.

To me this is nothing more than saying gee it's too hard, I don't want to read this. All this about "pathetic navelgazing and whining whining whining" is just rationalizing your own distaste for hard work. Who is doing the whining here? You are. Any one can talk like this about anything. All it does is present the mere appearance of demeaning something.

If you want to whine properly, read Heidegger past those first pages, then onward. That would make it a critique, worthy of one's time.

Oh I remembered something aside from the nausea. After forcing myself to read a few more pages, I think Heidegger started talking about how in his phenomenology, the subject encounters objects, and we need to investigate the relationships between subject and objects. I was starting to get the sense that he was speaking literally, so I gave up.

[Atla]

I'm interested in PHILOSOPHY, which asks the big questions and is impersonal.

Not interested in an obnoxious, whiney, self-important Nazi worshipper's personal philosophy, about how he wants to arrange his own mental content. Why the f should I care about that?

[odysseus]

Atla wrote
I'm interested in PHILOSOPHY, which asks the big questions and is impersonal.

Not interested in an obnoxious, whiney, self-important Nazi worshipper's personal philosophy, about how he wants to arrange his own mental content. Why the f should I care about that?

Because being and Time has nothing to do with Nazism. Any more than Plato had anything to do with pedophilia. This kind of reasoning is so bad it has a name: the ad hominem fallacy.

Just read it and pretend you know nothing about the author. I don't see why he is whiney to you. There is nothing whiney in Being and Time at all, nor is it not impersonal. Where do you get such an idea? It is simply a phenomenological theory about what it means to be a self in the world.

Just read it and see for yourself.

[Atla]

Because being and Time has nothing to do with Nazism. Any more than Plato had anything to do with pedophilia. This kind of reasoning is so bad it has a name: the ad hominem fallacy.

Just read it and pretend you know nothing about the author. I don't see why he is whiney to you. There is nothing whiney in Being and Time at all, nor is it not impersonal. Where do you get such an idea? It is simply a phenomenological theory about what it means to be a self in the world.

Just read it and see for yourself.

For the same reason your comments also come across as whiney to me. You pretend to be doing philosophy, whereas you simply want your individual psychological take on being to matter.

[odysseus]

Atla wrote
Oh I remembered something aside from the nausea. After forcing myself to read a few more pages, I think Heidegger started talking about how in his phenomenology, the subject encounters objects, and we need to investigate the relationships between subject and objects. I was starting to get the sense that he was speaking literally, so I gave up.

Understood. Giving up on things is not good. Prejudging things is not good. I think Machiavelli is a nightmare! But I did read The Prince so I now know why he is a nightmare and I am not just spouting off. Heidegger's Being and Time is deeply profound. Don't get nauseous, just take it bit by bit.

Reading Kant first helps. Nietzsche, too. Kierkegaard gave Heidegger a LOT. Hegel, too. It is an enterprise.

[odysseus]

Atla wrote
Or maybe you're just an idiot when it comes to psychology, like most people are, and can't figure out things on your own. I have all the reason to believe that I already went beyond your Kant and Heidegger. You would have been more believable if you actually could have pointed out something I was wrong about.

Okay. What do you think is the relationship between the knower and the known in an unproblematic case of knowing? That is a start.

I won't be at the computer till later, though.

[Advocate]

[quote=odysseus post_id=481299 time=1606163039 user_id=15698]
[quote]Atla wrote
Or maybe you're just an idiot when it comes to psychology, like most people are, and can't figure out things on your own. I have all the reason to believe that I already went beyond your Kant and Heidegger. You would have been more believable if you actually could have pointed out something I was wrong about.[/quote]

Okay. What do you think is the relationship between the knower and the known in an unproblematic case of knowing? That is a start.

I won't be at the computer till later, though.
[/quote]

The knower must have justified belief and that belief must be justified with a rational understanding of critical thinking.

[Atla]

Atla wrote
Or maybe you're just an idiot when it comes to psychology, like most people are, and can't figure out things on your own. I have all the reason to believe that I already went beyond your Kant and Heidegger. You would have been more believable if you actually could have pointed out something I was wrong about.

Okay. What do you think is the relationship between the knower and the known in an unproblematic case of knowing? That is a start.

I won't be at the computer till later, though.

There is no knower-known duality so there is no relationship.

[odysseus]

Advocate wrote
You misunderstand how language works. Every word has a meaning. There are no exceptions. Knowledge claims are simply that which continues to be the case when validated. We Know about the world that which evidence gives us Reason to believe. There is no transcendent definition of knowledge possible, nor would one be useful. Knowledge is justified belief, regardless of whether it fails later due to additional evidence not available now. My own philosophy is completely existential and completely transparent (or at least translucent until you understand which technical uses certain words require). There is no necessity of reading any of Hegel or Kierkegaard to develop a completely coherent existential philosophy including both metaphysics and epistemology, as is the way i have done it.

But you have to go into it: Meaning? What is this? What does it mean to have a knowledge claim validated? That is, If I know P is true, what is this truth makes this relation between P and myself what we call truth? Transcendent definition of knowldge? I don't know where this comes from, but for me to call it transcendent is simply to discard the common 'material' or 'substance' and to give it a more descriptive designation. I refer to presence, which I am currently studying. The giveness of things that is freighted into discussion by language. I don't know what giveness is and I want to understand this. How do I have a misunderstanding?

Kierkegaard is extremely helpful, and Husserl and Fink are amazing! Levinas is an extension of these. And on on. The one thing reading gives you is an opening into philosophical disclosure you never thought of. Kierkegaard was simply a great thinking genius. Why not read what he has to say in The Concept of Anxiety? The you can say with confidence that it wasn't necessary; but then, you will certainly NOT being saying this. His thinking is powerful (forget, however, that, as Heidegger put it, K was a religious writer. After all, The world IS a religious place).

But on the other hand, do tell about this "completely coherent existential philosophy including both metaphysics and epistemology" of yours.