Heidegger, Hume, and scientists

Gregory November 06, 2019 at 20:33 3500 views 10 comments

I was thinking recently that Heidegger might give a justification to science. If scientists are greatly in tune with matter's being (it reveals its "region" to them), maybe they understand it in ways Hume-ans don't. Hume had a mentality prominent in the East, which I consider spiritual. Reconciling it with Being and Time is difficult for me

Comments (10)

Wayfarer November 07, 2019 at 00:59 #349758 0 likes

Quoting Gregory

. If scientists are greatly in tune with matter's being...

matter only 'has being' when appears in human form. That's why we're 'beings' and things, just 'things'.

In regards to the nature of matter, science has built the largest, most complex, and most expensive apparatus in the history of the world to investigate it, and there are many more questions than answers.

Gregory November 07, 2019 at 03:39 #349792 0 likes

I think Hume thought motion was mysterious because of Parmenides

TheMadFool November 07, 2019 at 03:54 #349794 0 likes

Quoting Gregory

I think Hume thought motion was mysterious because of Parmenides

Why?

Gregory November 07, 2019 at 05:18 #349809 0 likes

Hume said he disagreed with Zeno but he therefore seemed to know about that school of thought

Gregory November 07, 2019 at 05:32 #349811 0 likes

https://aeon.co/essays/the-logic-of-budd hist-philosophy-goes-beyond-simple-truth

Gregory November 07, 2019 at 05:35 #349813 0 likes

Notice the first quote from nagarjuna. He was the easts parmenides. I see Hume as the forerunner to Schopenhauer's emptiness. Didn't they both like Buddhism?

Gregory November 07, 2019 at 05:53 #349816 0 likes

Hume denied that the self and material substance make ncessary sense. He called the connection to the world "a species of instinct or mechanical power. He started a Buddhist type of psychological introspection. For him, no theory of reality is possible

Jamal November 08, 2019 at 09:10 #350240 0 likes

Quoting Wayfarer

matter only 'has being' when appears in human form. That's why we're 'beings' and things, just 'things'.

People have pointed out to you a few times before just how idiosyncratic your use of "being" is, at least in philosophy. This discussion is partly about about Heidegger, and Heidegger uses the term being in the traditional Aristotelian sense: a being is something that can be said to be. Being is about existence.

Wayfarer November 08, 2019 at 09:48 #350245 0 likes

Reply to jamalrob Someone took exception when I pointed out that the word 'ontology' is derived from the first-person participle of the Greek 'ouisia', which is the verb 'to be'. So the first-person participle of the verb 'to be' is 'I am'. This, I maintain, is significant, and not idiosyncratic in the least, as it indicates that ontology is concerned with the nature of being, in a way that is unintelligible to the perspective of the objective sciences, on the grounds that 'the nature of being' is never an object of awareness.

Quoting jamalrob

Heidegger uses the term being in the traditional Aristotelian sense: a being is something that can be said to be. Being is about existence.

There's a phrase often used in relation to Heidegger's philosophy: forgetfulness of _______ .

What is the word that is commonly used in this context?

Arne February 01, 2020 at 18:27 #377762 0 likes

Quoting jamalrob

This discussion is partly about about Heidegger, and Heidegger uses the term being in the traditional Aristotelian sense: a being is something that can be said to be. Being is about existence.

For Heidegger, existence is one of three modes of being; the other two modes are ready-to-hand and present-to-hand.