|
On June 19 2008 05:19 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2008 05:09 MiniRoman wrote:
I personally think existentialism is the ideal belief set for today's world. Live by what is right for you, own up to things you've chosen to do. Everything in your life is a product of yourself choosing to accept what is.Far too often people bitch about not having a choice when they are truly the only one who has the power to live their lives. so did it actually have an effect on how you live, like did you actually try to own up and accept certain stuff you were confused about or ignored before.
i strongly believe[lol] that it can only be the other way round. Your life defines your believes, thus its your experience that defines which philosophic stance one finds appealing. So to word it a bit different:
Its not the words that have impact on your life, its your life that impacts how you understand the words.
Thus all life is problem solving in the first place, and imo both heidegger and kierkegaard fail at giving any advice on problemsolving. They only give a certain combination of terms one may find appealing if raised in the right culture/class/language/etc.. To discuss these things seriously one would have to define the meaning of every single word, and then define every single word in every definition and so on...its just not possible =>Thats why falsification is so important.
|
first off i want to say sorry for the double post, but i've been thinking about the op wanting a serious discussion, thus i now want to give a serious answer.
1.)Its not possible to dicuss Heideggers/kierkegaards philosophy.
We can only discuss what they have written down, not what they where thinking! (seems to be a no-brainer)
We can further only discuss how we see what they have written down. Thus we can only dicuss our interpretation of their work.
One could say that only using terms, the combination of terms and the definition of terms heidegger/kierkegaard provide is legitimate. This would lead us to not discussing but copy/pasting because if only what they wrote down is legitimate, only the exact sentences are legitimate...
The moment we add new terms or new combinations of terms its not Heidegger/Kierkegaard anymore, but only our own thoughts. So their have to be as many interpretations as their are people on this planet(maybe more) and deciding which is more true is impossible. Its only possible to decide which does more copy/paste and which is more our own thoughts.
2.) It's not necessary to discuss it.
If we define philosophy as he act of 'thinking and talking', one can see with ease that there is no link between the reality and our minds. Our minds can be in fact endlessly far away from any form of matter.
The link between our minds and the reality is 'acting', but one has to admit, that out actions can be as far away from our philosophy as our mind is from matter. Simply put thinking and acting are two different universes (third universe called the universe of problems by karl popper), Problems cant be solved by thinking they can only be solved by acting (no-brainer)
Thus instead of verifying our thoughts and believing in acting better afterwards, we have to act and then falsify those actions which werent costeffective (this is done by the free-market, where over time the more efficient households will displace the less effective ones).
round up: Thinking is the link between problems and actions. This link can only be made after the problem and the action have appeared. Thus it is impossible to discuss philosophy as long as the op isnt providing a problem and a possible action.
Sorry for this post i am very bored right now...
|
I think it's pretty clear that you've never read a word of heidegger or did read but didn't read carefully or you're just dumb.
"The moment we add new terms or new combinations of terms its not Heidegger/Kierkegaard anymore, but only our own thoughts. So their have to be as many interpretations as their are people on this planet(maybe more) and deciding which is more true is impossible. Its only possible to decide which does more copy/paste and which is more our own thoughts."
No man there are interpretations which are dumb and interpretations which are not. If you think every person can have a different interpretations of heidegger than you don't know what basic hermeneutics/interpretation is. This isn't fucking wuthering heights, it's a person trying to express his ideas in the clearest way possible in text. Do you have like, trouble reading or something?
"If we define philosophy as he act of 'thinking and talking', one can see with ease that there is no link between the reality and our minds. Our minds can be in fact endlessly far away from any form of matter."
Sick definition man. I guess entire time I thought I was reading philosophy I was actually reading a person thinking and talking. Oh no link between reality and mind? Go circle jerk with your solipsist buddies and stop posting in my blog.
|
"round up: Thinking is the link between problems and actions. This link can only be made after the problem and the action have appeared. Thus it is impossible to discuss philosophy as long as the op isnt providing a problem and a possible action."
Dude where do you get this definition from? Did you read some fucked up pragmatist texts combined with Hume or whatever?
|
ok im sorry for flaming, can you tell me what kind of stuff you have read and how you got your view of philosophy from
|
actually i am studying philosophy lol and i've read like everything that can be even rudimenary called 'philosophy'. I am very bad at english though, so i guess my sentences are very bad, maybe even not understandable...
Still my argument remains intact , as i wasnt arguing against heidegger but against the idea of discussing about philosophy. Seriously your answers arent really argumentative but mindless insulting of myself. If u want to flame in your Post i would have stayed out, but you should have changed the name of the thread then.
My views come from my studies of philosophy, economy, politics and from my life experience one could say. I am leaning towards a 'economic' viewpoint in my posts though.
I would recommend
Karl Popper on the 3universes- thinking acting problems and how they interact
Oppenheimer Franz on why philosophy is irrelevant lol
hegel to counter to much heidegger :-)
I hope u dont feel insulted or hurt by my posts, as u have written that i shall stay out of your thread and then asked a question which will inevitably lead to me posting...
|
On June 19 2008 19:44 sanftm00d wrote:
i strongly believe[lol] that it can only be the other way round. Your life defines your believes, thus its your experience that defines which philosophic stance one finds appealing. So to word it a bit different:
Its not the words that have impact on your life, its your life that impacts how you understand the words.
You talk as if Freud, Adler or Jung had never existed. But they have and if you had studied one of them minimally, you'd know that it's not life which impacts and thus configures your self, it's what you interpret from life which is what really affects you and configures your the schemes with which you behave. And of course, that interpretation is not something you choose. It might seem trivial but it's not.
On June 19 2008 19:44 sanftm00d wrote:
Thus all life is problem solving in the first place, and imo both heidegger and kierkegaard fail at giving any advice on problemsolving. They only give a certain combination of terms one may find appealing if raised in the right culture/class/language/etc.. To discuss these things seriously one would have to define the meaning of every single word, and then define every single word in every definition and so on...its just not possible =>Thats why falsification is so important.
You say heidegger and kerkegaard fail at giving any advice, so what? Do you think their philosophy's purpose is to be practical?
No, not necessarily. These philosophers don't aim to reach some efficient/practical method to obtain some result. They are in search of truth, they try to think and seek the essence of things not for any other reason than to have a better insight of them. It's something our current materialist minds can't understand because of our technological culture.
|
On June 19 2008 01:44 Kingsp4de20 wrote:
What in gods name is existentialism? What in gods name is a serious discussion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
You don't need to problem to exist to think or philosophy about it. Most of math is based on this. Mathematicians invent tools to be used for a purpose they most of the time don't know of. They just philosophy about it, archive it and leave it there for someone to find a use for it. When matrixes were invented dozens of years ago no one knew we would use that to calculate 3d computer graphics.
