t0m

On 'pastness' (for Bloodninja): If you look at endnote 29 in the Farin translation of The Concept of Time, I think it becomes clear that 'pastness' in...

To be clear, science is great. We have no choice. Doubts of the uniformity of nature are theoretical. They are 'silly.' But they are fascinating. To m...

It does seem that we have ripped apart meaning and 'reality' for practical reasons. Dazzled by utility, we forget that this ripping-apart always alrea...

Is this relativity itself relative? Or understood as an absolute? And was it not established on an assumption of the uniformity of nature? How could a...

Admittedly this is deep water. The Mobius strip is no joke. We are in a world that is in us that is in the world, etc. Do you remember a time 'before ...

Well put. I call this 'world weariness.' I experience it occasionally. Especially in my 20s, I would sometimes be struck by an intense longing for dea...

I take your point, but Hume could squeeze out enough theoretical doubt to make the issue conspicuous. I think the OP does the same thing. Maybe it's n...

To me this confusion is best explained by considering all the unconsidered baggage that we are bringing to the question. If we assume without question...

But why do we like to survive? And justifying our liking reason in terms of the truths it brings us only further makes my point, as I see it. We like ...

What do you make of Hume's problem of induction? I have no real doubt about the uniformity of nature, but it seems to me that quantum theory is founde...

From my perspective, your're underestimating the 'power' of language here. You seem to take the subject as an absolute without understanding the subje...

Right. I think you've opened a nice philosophical can of worms, kind of like Hume's problem of induction. It may not be a practical question, but I do...

How about this: we feel that it is good to be able to give reasons. We 'unreasonably' like reasons. We have an image of virtue that compels us, and th...

That's a great point. It looks like we have to trust in some kind of uniformity. But there's also Hume's problem of induction. So the trust in uniform...

Again, I can't claim to know what Hegel had in mind, but only share what I make of his text. I underline what inspired me to understand being as bare ...

I respect your disagreement. I don't pretend to be sure of what he meant, and I also don't want to be mistaken as trying to argue from an authority I ...

I do cherish the tool metaphor as a corrective of mind-jamming representationalism. But I think truth as correspondence is great most of the time. I d...

Maybe Hegel missed something, though, when he focused on the what-it-is as opposed to the that-it-is of being. His being is just a pure thing, an enti...

I don't object to "through us the world is for us." But I don't agree that the world always already externalized. We can think of TLP Wittgenstein's '...

Along these lines, I'd stress that "thinking substance" tempts us to think of a being among beings, when far more significantly we have the openness o...

So would I. I agree that we want something like accuracy. Also that not all subjectivism is equal. A radical like Rorty can replace representation wit...

I can why you would say that, but for me this is still a layer of abstraction on the (non-Kantian) phenomenon. "That which shows itself" is primary, o...

I have quoted this before, but I put it here for reference since it gets at the behind-word-ness mentioned above.

Neither I am, or I wouldn't be convinced of it. It's 'paradoxical' or 'mystical' perhaps. It's 'behind words.' For me the 'mystical' can't be about hi...

Isn't this all just the usual disagreement about terminology, though? We don't report seeing the tree with all of this metaphysical baggage in mind. W...

On this issue I'm coming from a Feuerbachian perspective. 'Intuition' is not the perfect word, but it's not wrong either. God only makes sense as some...

It's true that parents throw their children into struggle. They plop them down on the roller coaster without asking them first. Some will give you a m...

Right, but this doesn't approach the 'is' itself or what it means to mean. If meaning is what is meant, then what is this 'what' that is meant? We ten...

Hell yeah. I'm delighted that we our views are closer than I thought at first. The 'iffiness' of 'is' is Heidegger's big theme. What do we mean by thi...

If I may interject, I think 'almost always' really just applies to a few radical philosophers and scientists. As I see it, we need only look at politi...

This move from atheism to 'just animals' is (as I see it) trapped within an unconsidered framework. You basically split the field into theism and scie...

I think I know what Apo had in mind. The 'pure' individual is an abstraction, just as 'pure' society is an abstraction. Yes we have (practically) dist...

But do you really? For me this "phantom" metaphor suggests a contingent perspective. A phantom relative to what? Is spacetime a phantom? Is an underst...

Exactly. That's where what we already understand as virtue comes in.

I think we can agree on the absence of a "metaphysical" answer to this "why." It seems to me that conscious procreation at least involves at least an ...

This "nothing" was brought to attention so that we could call it a nothing, though. Were you not just 'handling' this "it" as an intelligible if ambig...

I think the everyday understanding is that information is "meaning." But what is meaning? And what is the "is" here? I suggest that we approach the ir...

I understand the urge to demystify, but isn't this urge itself subject to demystification? I can only guess at your view, since you aren't contextuali...

I do appreciate the "use" perspective on language, but I find it implausible as a final truth. I agree that "saying what meaning is" is no small matte...

First of all, great post. I really enjoyed it. I'll grant that it is what most would call atheism. But I have an understanding of language that "probl...

For me your perspective takes too much for granted. It adopts the scientific image of reality as a metaphysical image of reality. This god's-eye-view ...

So maybe Plato was proto-Kantian? I'm understanding Heidegger at the moment as an "improved" Kant. It seems that Kant was most interested in understan...

To my mind this brings up the grounds of phenomenology --or actually its groundlessness. "To the things themselves." But what normalizes this discours...

It's a good thread, a deep question. I've been there. I absorbed a certain amount of religion, then gave it a real go at 15. But thinking about free w...

Good point. For me this notion of explanation itself is also insufficiently analyzed. What is an explanation? https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scien...

I agree. Sure, for a biologist we are animals. But since when is biology the most fundamental word in our self-interpretation? In short, it's scientis...

This is one of the better bits of Hegel for me, though (as with Nietzsche in The Antichrist) he's not describing his own position. I don't know what y...

Yeah, this nails a theme in Being and Time. Apparently Heidegger switches from angst-dread to the attunement of profound boredom in Fundamental Concep...

Ah yes, Hegel used that dialogue as an example of "the labor of the concept." Is it mystical? I've only skimmed it, and I wasn't the frame of mind to ...

You did get my point, yes. But this is "with" Heidegger. "Dasein" in its everydayness is lived by the "they" or the anyone. Dasein is "primordially" "...