@atreestump
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Grave digging this thread.
As regards subject and objective truth, Nietzsche’s idea of value is radically different from the philosophical mainstream, in at least two important ways. First, there are no such things for Nietzsche as “intrinsic” values belonging to things “in themselves”, and certainly not as universal or timeless values. A thing – an object, an action, an event, an idea, money, human labour, a moral code, laughter in the marketplace, or whatever – has no meaning or value ‘in its own right’. If it has a value, this is because it has been given it ‘as a gift’ by someone who values.
Take your time. 😉
@”warda” good to see you active!
According to Heidegger, the question of the meaning of Being, and thus Being as such, has been forgotten by ‘the tradition’ (roughly, Western philosophy from Plato onwards). Heidegger means by this that the history of Western thought has failed to heed the ontological difference, and so has articulated Being precisely as a kind of ultimate being, as evidenced by a series of namings of Being, for example as idea, energeia, substance, monad or will to power. In this way Being as such has been forgotten. So Heidegger sets himself the task of recovering the question of the meaning of Being. In this context he draws two distinctions between different kinds of inquiry. The first, which is just another way of expressing the ontological difference, is between the ontical and the ontological, where the former is concerned with facts about entities and the latter is concerned with the meaning of Being, with how entities are intelligible as entities. Using this technical language, we can put the point about the forgetting of Being as such by saying that the history of Western thought is characterized by an ‘onticization’ of Being (by the practice of treating Being as a being). However, as Heidegger explains, here in the words of Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, “an ontic knowledge can never alone direct itself ‘to’ the objects, because without the ontological… it can have no possible Whereto” (translation taken from Overgaard 2002, p.76, note 7). The second distinction between different kinds of inquiry, drawn within the category of the ontological, is between regional ontology and fundamental ontology, where the former is concerned with the ontologies of particular domains, say biology or banking, and the latter is concerned with the a priori, transcendental conditions that make possible particular modes of Being (i.e., particular regional ontologies). For Heidegger, the ontical presupposes the regional-ontological, which in turn presupposes the fundamental-ontological.
Speak speaking from a near death experience in which I had the choice to either return to my body or leave the earth completely, our awareness is not dependent on this physical body… the body is more like a veil or shroud around our total awareness.I perceive us as mummified in matter. And when this shroud wears away and falls off, we resurrect.
life is not Life and death is not Death.
[hr]
The wise serpent sheds many skins before it “dies”
Please share this experience in the religion and spirituality section!
I think ‘a’ soul , or ‘your’ soul, ‘my’ soul is misleading for defining what soul is. As we are talking about some kind of essence, it is therefore relational and subject to dependent origination.
What is not, is something we have no possession of, it is something that appears as part of a configuration. Soul would not emerge if there were no other relations and so it is something exercised and is expressed as a value in relations.
As it is relational, ‘selling’ is already somewhat what it is – it is a gift we exchange between self and other, it is given and taken by definition as a configuration in relations. So our concept of soul is an abstraction based on value, yet the ‘thing’ in itself is no where to be found.
I will call it Amon/Amen – from now on, titles can be no longer than 40 characters long, including spaces. Please think carefully about what your title will be that will best summarise the content.
The only notion I coupd find for now is the phenomenological pre-reflective and reflective consciousness, but I think there may be better terms in Nietzsche, who deals with deeply unconscious, embodied, embedded drives, desires, values and beliefs. One consciousness is deliberative, the other reflexive.
/me applauds @”kFoyauextlH” for the summary
More of that kind of posting!
[hr]
A musical interlude:Right, got you. Thanks.
Credit regions?
Vampire is a term used for greedy landlords.
-
AuthorPosts
