Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Spectrum »

Burning ghost wrote: July 26th, 2018, 1:42 am Spectrum and Fool -

Can we just simply sum this up and say what we can never know (lack the capacity to know) is no thing. What we do not know and have the potential to know (no matter how unlikely) we are still able to know given exposure.

If we can only know via Kantian intuitions then anything that lies beyond is no thing to us. The “illusion” is assuming we can know what we lack the facilities to comprehend.

Even a congenially blind person can appreciate to some small degree the meaning of colour without ever expereincing colour sensations. If all humans were born blind we’d still be able to appreciate the idea of “colour” without anyone experiencing colour.

“Noumenon” is the ter Kant uses to make distinctions about these ideas.
Note Kant's CPR is divided into three main stages, i.e.
  • 1. Sensibility and the empirical
    2. Pure Understanding
    3. Pure Reason
The idea of "noumenon" is only restricted to stage 1.
The most critical state of the CPR is stage 3, i.e. Pure Reason where all empirical things [including basis of color] and thoughts are ultimately transcendental ideas, i.e. illusion.
Therefore re Kantian we cannot stop with the idea of the temporary 'noumenon'.

So when one talks about color the most one can do is to restrict it within the empirical with a noumenon wall to stop it further. Any justification of color conventionally is justified by Science with its qualified limitations.
But when one, e.g. the Philosophical Realist insists there exist color independent of the human conditions or the blind man, that is illusory.
The theists will insist God created colors and Kant argument is both color-in-itself created by God-in-itself are both illusions if there is any inclination or inkling to denote them as something positive in any way.

Thus Kant is confident except where justified by human-qualified Framework and System [e.g. Science] the ultimate of whatever is a transcendental idea i.e. illusory. It is possible to have thoughts that are illusory.

What is thought as unknown but can be known is restricted to something that has empirical possibility which can be justified empirically subject to evidence.

As for color, what we have is phenomenal color versus noumenal color.
What is phenomenal color is empirically possible but noumenal color is ultimately an impossibility and illusory.

We should not stop prematuredly with the idea of the noumenal but should understand how Kant shifted perspective from noumenal to thing-in-itself as a thought in Pure Understanding and ideas [illusions] in Pure Reason.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Burning ghost »

Spectrum -

There is a issue with looking at this in terms of knowledge I think. Both yourself and fool seem to be playing mental tennis, knocking the same ball back and forth with a slightly different spin on it.

The term is a proposition with which to recognise limitations. Kant analogy (a technique he rarely employed for good reason) expresses teh island of knowledge well enough. We know there is a limit yet we’ve no complete understanding of what the limit is or what the limit means. Without limitations set upon knowledge they’d be no knowledge.

We can contemplate a impossible scenario but we cannot experience one. If the seemingly impossible was to happen before our eyes we’d likely not see it (being unable to cognise it) or we’d come to envelop it in our greater field of understanding and push out the limits of what we previously deemed possible a little further.

This is why the intuitions are important. We cannot think of anything in anyway without relying upon spaciotemporal references. This is why I like what Husserl talked about with the contrmplation of items and imagination. We cannot imagine a physical object if certain “moments” are disgarded (ie. a sound must has volume, tone, etc., and a box must have shape, colour, mass, etc., to be perceived either experientially or cia imaginative processses - of which for Husserl in terms of phenomenological investigation was irrelevant.)
AKA badgerjelly
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Spectrum »

Burning ghost wrote: July 26th, 2018, 3:20 am Spectrum -

There is a issue with looking at this in terms of knowledge I think. Both yourself and fool seem to be playing mental tennis, knocking the same ball back and forth with a slightly different spin on it.

The term is a proposition with which to recognise limitations. Kant analogy (a technique he rarely employed for good reason) expresses teh island of knowledge well enough. We know there is a limit yet we’ve no complete understanding of what the limit is or what the limit means. Without limitations set upon knowledge they’d be no knowledge.

We can contemplate a impossible scenario but we cannot experience one. If the seemingly impossible was to happen before our eyes we’d likely not see it (being unable to cognise it) or we’d come to envelop it in our greater field of understanding and push out the limits of what we previously deemed possible a little further.

This is why the intuitions are important. We cannot think of anything in anyway without relying upon spaciotemporal references. This is why I like what Husserl talked about with the contrmplation of items and imagination. We cannot imagine a physical object if certain “moments” are disgarded (ie. a sound must has volume, tone, etc., and a box must have shape, colour, mass, etc., to be perceived either experientially or cia imaginative processses - of which for Husserl in terms of phenomenological investigation was irrelevant.)
The above points just did not filter the following critical elements;
Note Kant's CPR is divided into three main stages, i.e.
  • 1. Sensibility and the empirical
    2. Pure Understanding
    3. Pure Reason
The idea of "noumenon" is only restricted to stage 1.

The most critical state of the CPR is stage 3, i.e. Pure Reason where all empirical things [including basis of color] and thoughts are ultimately transcendental ideas, i.e. illusion.
Therefore re Kantian we cannot stop with the idea of the temporary 'noumenon'.
I note stage 2 and 3 just don't click with your awareness.
To do so one will have to read Kant thoroughly.

The noumenon is only a partial ceiling in the first floor, there are two more floors that Kant has established.
The 2nd floor, i.e. Pure Understanding has a ceiling.
But the 3rd Floor has no ceiling limit so it is open till infinity.
Thus one should climb to the 3rd floor and realize there is no ceiling limit at all on the 3rd floor.

If you think the noumenon is a limit to knowledge you are stretching this ceiling to the third floor which should have no limit at all.
The theists ceiling on the third floor, i.e. Pure Reason is God, the Soul, THE Universe which are illusory.

Another point is the term 'knowledge' which can be a very loose term.

A common trigger with the term 'knowledge' is automatically the mind will default to 'knowledge of what' and 'knowledge of something' thus one is caught in the world of dualism, subject-object and all its associated problems from philosophical realism [normal], egoism-I_ness to theism at the extreme.

Kant perspective to cognition is not cognizing-what but a spontaneously emergence and realization of reality in conjunction with the human conditions, note Kant Copernican Revolution.
Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.

But all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.

We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our Knowledge.

This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.

We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis. 1
Failing of satisfactory progress of explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest.

A similar experiment can be tried in Metaphysics, as regards the Intuition of Objects.
If Intuition must conform to the constitution of the Objects, I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the objects] a priori
but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility.
Bxvi
In the above Kant implied spontaneous emergence and realization, but the faculty of Pure Reason with Pure Understanding cannot resist to default to dualism, i.e. appearance is a representation of what-appears and ultimately leading to reification of illusions.

Btw, I do not want to discuss too much just in case you flipped again.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Burning ghost »

Nope, there is a limit to reason. It is dictated by intuitions. That which we cannot hold to is no thing to us (physically or mentally.) What is called knowledge is in some form comprehended. That which can not be comprehended in any form is no thing at all.

I think I see what fool was riling against now with the differentation betwee epistemology and ontology. Husserl pointed out, maybe faultily, that Kant presumed the existence of things. The phenomenal can be explored and the noumenal mark the territory of limit negatively. There is nothing to posit in terms of “positive noumenon.” This very discussion is existent as phenomenon. This is the trap of language. To discuss noumenon is a phenomenon - Husserl, for me at least, ironed out the broader scope of the term phenomenon.

Maybe I’ll go find a Kant museum :)
AKA badgerjelly
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Fooloso4 »

Spectrum:
Kant in the early phases of his argument, temporarily provide for things-that-appear, i.e. 'the way things are'.
That which appears is an appearance. Things that appear are not necessarily the way things are a) in the sense of the way things are for us and b) are certainly not the way they are independent of us. Things that appear are always what appears for us, but what appears to me or some other individual may be an optical illusion or an hallucination.
Note my view of the above is in the context of the whole CPR.
It is difficult not to note it since you have repeated it so many times. Do you think I have not taken notice of it when I have responded to it?
Kant subsequent argued in detail the "that" within 'that-which-is-thought' is an illusion.
So you have said, but you have not provided any textual evidence in support of it. An “unknown something” is not a “that”. It neither points to this or that and predicates nothing of it.
It is a common claim among academicians, a serious full time researcher need 3 years full time or 5 years part time to understand [not necessary agree) Kant fully. To get a good grasp of Kant I had to do those necessary times.
Any academic who claims that Kant can be FULLY understood in 3 years or even 30 years or at all should have his or her academic qualifications questioned.
(nb: the above took me >10 minutes to find it - thus my complain of searching for quotes being time consuming)
Yes, it is. It is what I have been doing, but if you don’t feel up to the task that is not a sufficient reason to allow unsubstantiated claims to stand on their own.
Note one need to master the idea of the Whole of the CPR.
My point is you are taking passages torn from the whole contexts of the CPR, thus it is difficult to align with the real theme of the CPR
Note one needs to show how passages taken out of context mean something different in their proper context. You have not done that, you just keep appealing to the Whole of the CPR, which in this case is nothing more than the whole of your questionable interpretation of the text.
My point is this "unknown something' is ultimately an illusion [Kant expressed it in many ways].
The only illusion here is imagining that simply repeating the same thing over and over again will make it true. You claim that Kant expressed it in many ways but have not provided even one example.
I used to rely totally on 'highly regarded' scholars and I have read many of such books on Kant.
This is a dodge intended to dismiss Kantian scholarship in favor of your insular views, and disingenuous since you do not acknowledge your reliance on Norman Kemp Smith’s notion of Kant’s development in order to explain away what runs counter to your interpretation.
Note even Guyer and Allison who both had studied Kant for more than 50 years each still disagree with each other on who is right on Kant.
Yes, I pointed this out in response to your saying that you spent three years reading the text. There are always interpretive differences, but your lone voice in the wilderness shtick ain’t cutting it.
Kant in CPR wrote:
There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
The key term here is Objective Reality. What is an illusion is that we can conclude anything about them, which includes ascribing Objective Reality to things in themselves as well as concluding they are an illusion.

Let me try another analogy. Suppose there is a locked room with a keyhole you can look through. Would you conclude that the only things in the room are those you can see through the keyhole? The limits of what you can see are not the limits of what is in the room. Analogously, the limits of what can be known should not be taken as the limits of what is. This is what Kantian humility is all about, not drawing conclusions about what we cannot know.
They [thing-in-itself as ideas] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
‘They’ refers to the conclusion or inference that from something with which we are acquainted to something of which we have no concept, and yet
to which we nevertheless, by an unavoidable illusion, give objective reality. In other words, we cannot get from the subjective knowledge to objective reality. He goes on to identify three species of such syllogisms:
There are, therefore, only three species of these dialectical syllogisms, as many as there are ideas in which their conclusions result. In
the first class of syllogisms, from the transcendental concept of a subject that contains nothing manifold I infer the absolute unity of this subject itself, even though in this way I have no concept at all of it. This dialectical inference I will call a transcendental paralogism. The second class of sophistical inference is applied in general to the transcendental concept of absolute totality in the series of conditions for a given appearance; and from the fact that I always have a self-contradictory concept of the unconditioned synthetic unity in the series on one side, I infer the correctness of the opposite unity, even though I also have no concept of it. I will call the condition of reason with regard to these dialectical inferences the antinomy of pure reason. Finally, in the third kind of sophistical inference, from the totality of conditions for thinking objects in general insofar as they can be given to me I infer the absolute synthetic unity of all conditions for the possibility of things in general; i.e., from things with which I am not acquainted as to their merely transcendental concept, I infer a being of all beings, with which I am even less acquainted through its transcendental a concept, and of whose unconditioned necessity I can make for myself no concept at all. This dialectical syllogism I will call the ideal of pure reason.
They refer respectively to self, the universe, and God. It is not that the self, the universe, and God are illusions, but rather, the illusion is that we can have objective knowledge of them. Your lack of humility leads you to go further and deny their existence.
I am confident I have mastered the whole theme of the CPR …
You are, as Socrates would say, ignorant of your ignorance. This is another form of your lack of humility.

Burning ghost:
Can we just simply sum this up and say what we can never know (lack the capacity to know) is no thing.
The problem is the ambiguity of the term ‘thing’ or ‘object’. A thing in itself would be a transcendent rather than transcendental object. It is for us no thing because it is not something that we can be cognizant of. Kant does not, however, draw the conclusion from this that the thing in itself is an illusion of pure reason. It is simply a recognition of our limits. The illusion occurs when we attempt to go beyond those limits. This is, as I said, problematic, but I think it is what Kant says.
The “illusion” is assuming we can know what we lack the facilities to comprehend.
I agree.
If all humans were born blind we’d still be able to appreciate the idea of “colour” without anyone experiencing colour.
All analogies eventually break down and don’t want to get bogged down on the issue of secondary qualities. It may be that they see red when pressing on their eyelids, but I see no reason why the question of color with regard to objects in the world would even arise. They would have no concept of the visual world. If an alien species were to communicate with blind earthlings and say anything about the visible world, a philosophically uninformed earthling might think the visible world is just an illusion.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Burning ghost »

Maybe there is a case of conflating “illusion” and “delusion” too?
AKA badgerjelly
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Spectrum »

Burning ghost wrote: July 26th, 2018, 8:32 am Nope, there is a limit to reason. It is dictated by intuitions. That which we cannot hold to is no thing to us (physically or mentally.) What is called knowledge is in some form comprehended. That which can not be comprehended in any form is no thing at all.

I think I see what fool was riling against now with the differentation betwee epistemology and ontology. Husserl pointed out, maybe faultily, that Kant presumed the existence of things. The phenomenal can be explored and the noumenal mark the territory of limit negatively. There is nothing to posit in terms of “positive noumenon.” This very discussion is existent as phenomenon. This is the trap of language. To discuss noumenon is a phenomenon - Husserl, for me at least, ironed out the broader scope of the term phenomenon.

Maybe I’ll go find a Kant museum :)
Heidegger main beef with Husserl is his concept of intentionality which thus imply the involvement of the subject that pollutes the question of Being.
that Kant presumed the existence of things.
That is totally wrong.
Kant's main thesis is things do not exist by themselves.
Things exist only on a qualified basis to their respective Framework and System.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Spectrum »

Fooloso4 wrote: July 26th, 2018, 12:44 pm Spectrum:
Kant in the early phases of his argument, temporarily provide for things-that-appear, i.e. 'the way things are'.
That which appears is an appearance. Things that appear are not necessarily the way things are
a) in the sense of the way things are for us and
b) are certainly not the way they are independent of us.
Things that appear are always what appears for us, but what appears to me or some other individual may be an optical illusion or an hallucination.
There are two perspectives to this;

In the Philosophical Realist perspective, the appearance of a table to the senses is represented by a real table [that-which-appears] out there external of the human conditions.

Appearance for Kant,
The effect of an Object upon the Faculty of Representation, so far as we are affected by it, is Sensation.
That Intuition which is in Relation to the Object through Sensation, is entitled Empirical.
The undetermined Object of an Empirical Intuition is entitled Appearance. A20 B34
That undetermined object which is more fundamental is also identified as the noumenon [temporarily in the sensibility stage], which subsequently when argued within Pure Understanding and Pure Reason is an illusion if viewed from the Philosophical Perspective.

My inference from what you have argued, is you still that take that "undetermined object" as something positive in whatever way you have idealized, otherwise you would have accept that as an illusion.
Kant subsequent argued in detail the "that" within 'that-which-is-thought' is an illusion.
So you have said, but you have not provided any textual evidence in support of it. An “unknown something” is not a “that”. It neither points to this or that and predicates nothing of it.
Note you stated "it" which inevitably has to be a 'that' or 'what-is.' You have to use "it" because you have been habituated by the language games.

Whenever you introduced "it" that is something positive in some ways within your mind.
Rightfully we should just state " " i.e. empty not "it" nor "that" nor "what-is". This is the emptiness and nothingness referred to within Buddhism.
If you use "it" one must note such an "it" is ultimately an illusion but only has qualified meaning within the respective Framework and System.

The CPR justify and explain how to use the idea of "_" and that the moment one use "it" then one must understand it is a potential illusion.
It is a common claim among academicians, a serious full time researcher need 3 years full time or 5 years part time to understand [not necessary agree) Kant fully. To get a good grasp of Kant I had to do those necessary times.
Any academic who claims that Kant can be FULLY understood in 3 years or even 30 years or at all should have his or her academic qualifications questioned.
Fully in the sense of the model involved not every detail.
(nb: the above took me >10 minutes to find it - thus my complain of searching for quotes being time consuming)
Yes, it is. It is what I have been doing, but if you don’t feel up to the task that is not a sufficient reason to allow unsubstantiated claims to stand on their own.
OK you agreed. We have to take note of this limitation.
Note one need to master the idea of the Whole of the CPR.
My point is you are taking passages torn from the whole contexts of the CPR, thus it is difficult to align with the real theme of the CPR
Note one needs to show how passages taken out of context mean something different in their proper context. You have not done that, you just keep appealing to the Whole of the CPR, which in this case is nothing more than the whole of your questionable interpretation of the text.
I have argued your view of the noumenon as restricted to the sensibility stage is not in alignment with the all the relevant stages up that of Pure Reason.
My point is this "unknown something' is ultimately an illusion [Kant expressed it in many ways].
The only illusion here is imagining that simply repeating the same thing over and over again will make it true. You claim that Kant expressed it in many ways but have not provided even one example.
You are not perceptive enough since you have not covered the whole of the CPR. The noumenal and thing-in-itself end up as illusion via the transcendental ideas.
I used to rely totally on 'highly regarded' scholars and I have read many of such books on Kant.
This is a dodge intended to dismiss Kantian scholarship in favor of your insular views, and disingenuous since you do not acknowledge your reliance on Norman Kemp Smith’s notion of Kant’s development in order to explain away what runs counter to your interpretation.
I did not say 'totally' but I admit still partially if need to. In general their overall presentation is not satisfactory to represent Kant's view, that is why I prefer to read direct from the CPR [English translations not the German edition].
Nope I do not rely fully on the NKS' translation only, I have 7 English translations to cross reference since the NKS' translation is not completely reliable..
Note even Guyer and Allison who both had studied Kant for more than 50 years each still disagree with each other on who is right on Kant.
Yes, I pointed this out in response to your saying that you spent three years reading the text. There are always interpretive differences, but your lone voice in the wilderness shtick ain’t cutting it.
It is not my lone voice since I do align [not totally] with the Allison's camp.
What I did is to read Kant's CPR in parallel with Buddhism and other Eastern Philosophies which makes the interpretation more richer and more precise.
Kant in CPR wrote:
There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
The key term here is Objective Reality. What is an illusion is that we can conclude anything about them, which includes ascribing Objective Reality to things in themselves as well as concluding they are an illusion.

Let me try another analogy. Suppose there is a locked room with a keyhole you can look through. Would you conclude that the only things in the room are those you can see through the keyhole? The limits of what you can see are not the limits of what is in the room. Analogously, the limits of what can be known should not be taken as the limits of what is. This is what Kantian humility is all about, not drawing conclusions about what we cannot know.
Note Kant stated he strived to make 'completeness' his aim.
The above analogy is limited.
Kant will reply;
"I may only be able to see within the view restricted by the keyhole, but whatever I do not see MUST be empirical things and nothing else [e.g. no ghost, spirits, angels, etc.]."

Kant covered everything completely and assert there is nothing positive within all that is accounted for in principle [not details] and if any one think there is something positive, it is an illusion.

Note when Kant has shifted his argument to the 'Home of Illusion' [transcendental illusions] there is nothing else positive in whatever ways, except potentially illusions.
Note Kant mentioned 'inevitable illusion' thus whatever-is will be an illusion [which nevertheless can still be useful].

Note the difference between empirical illusions and transcendental illusions.
In empirical illusions, a rope mistaken for a snake is still nevertheless a real rope.
In transcendental illusions, there is nothing to fall back except rising thoughts.

Re Objective Reality above, Kant stated we should not ascribe objective reality to them. There is no more question of objective reality at all at the stage of Pure Reason.
Objective Reality is only confined to the initial stage1 involving sensibility, intuition, appearance, etc. and never beyond stage1.
I am confident I have mastered the whole theme of the CPR …
You are, as Socrates would say, ignorant of your ignorance. This is another form of your lack of humility.
Note Kant asserted he aimed for completeness, i.e. in terms of systems and principles. He is not talking about the variations in forms and their details.

Example if we understand the completeness of the human anatomy, then in general we know the anatomy of all individual humans on Earth [except for abnormalities]. It is not practical to know the individual characteristics [warts and all] of all individuals in the world.

In anycase, Kant would not implied his 'completeness' mean absolute completeness.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Spectrum »

Fooloso4 wrote: July 26th, 2018, 12:44 pm
They [thing-in-itself as ideas] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
‘They’ refers to the conclusion or inference that from something with which we are acquainted to something of which we have no concept, and yet
to which we nevertheless, by an unavoidable illusion, give objective reality. In other words, we cannot get from the subjective knowledge to objective reality. He goes on to identify three species of such syllogisms:
There are, therefore, only three species of these dialectical syllogisms, as many as there are ideas in which their conclusions result. In

the first class of syllogisms, from the transcendental concept of a subject that contains nothing manifold I infer the absolute unity of this subject itself, even though in this way I have no concept at all of it. This dialectical inference I will call a transcendental paralogism.

The second class of sophistical inference is applied in general to the transcendental concept of absolute totality in the series of conditions for a given appearance; and from the fact that I always have a self-contradictory concept of the unconditioned synthetic unity in the series on one side, I infer the correctness of the opposite unity, even though I also have no concept of it. I will call the condition of reason with regard to these dialectical inferences the antinomy of pure reason.

Finally, in the third kind of sophistical inference, from the totality of conditions for thinking objects in general insofar as they can be given to me I infer the absolute synthetic unity of all conditions for the possibility of things in general; i.e., from things with which I am not acquainted as to their merely transcendental concept, I infer a being of all beings, with which I am even less acquainted through its transcendental a concept, and of whose unconditioned necessity I can make for myself no concept at all. This dialectical syllogism I will call the ideal of pure reason.
They refer respectively to self, the universe, and God. It is not that the self, the universe, and God are illusions, but rather, the illusion is that we can have objective knowledge of them. Your lack of humility leads you to go further and deny their existence.
‘They’ refers to the conclusion or inference that from something with which we are acquainted to something of which we have no concept, and yet
to which we nevertheless, by an unavoidable illusion, give objective reality. In other words, we cannot get from the subjective knowledge to objective reality. He goes on to identify three species of such syllogisms:
It is not 'from subjective knowledge to objective reality'.

Here is an example from the Philosophical Realist's (PR) perspective;

1. A PR see a table out there which to him is objective reality. The point is to the PR, the table is real because he can feel it, smell it, and sense it with other senses as a table independent of his human conditions.
2. A PR understand his perception of the table is process by him mind.
3. The PR insist there is an objectively real table out there because others can also perceive the same table out there.
4. In other words there is a table-in-itself existing out there independent of human conditions.

What Kant is asserting is, the table that the PR felt then insist it is an objective reality is a transcendental illusion [not empirical illusion].
This is the illusion at the first stage1 re sensibility, i.e. taking the noumenal table as an objective reality.

Note Science recognized the objective reality of a table out there based on its Scientific Framework and System, but it only assumes a table-in-itself exists out there independent of human conditions.

The PR on the other hand do not assume but insists the table-in-itself as the most objective real.

All empirical things are then viewed as a unity by Pure Understanding in stage 2 as THE Universe;
The second class of sophistical inference is applied in general to the transcendental concept of absolute totality in the series of conditions for a given appearance; and from the fact that I always have a self-contradictory concept of the unconditioned synthetic unity in the series on one side, I infer the correctness of the opposite unity, even though I also have no concept of it. I will call the condition of reason with regard to these dialectical inferences the antinomy of pure reason.
The individual table is now combined with everything empirical, i.e. things-in-themselves as a single whole, i.e. THE-Universe-in-itself as an idea.
Note Kant had argued all ideas are illusory, thus THE-Universe-in-itself as an idea is illusory and if reified is an illusion. It cannot be anything else other than an illusion.

The same argument goes for the soul-in-itself and God-it-itself which are illusory, a potential illusion and if reified is an illusion. They cannot be anything else other than an illusion.

I inferred you have a reservations on the above, i.e. you view there is still an "it" to all the above ideas.
If your "it" is not an illusion, then it has to be something positive which Kant stated is not possible, note B311.
At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility. B311
Actually I cannot grasp your views of the issue solidly.
But I know for you to explain your views, you have to use "it" and thus entrapped yourself in an illusory state and a potential for an inevitable illusion.

I believe the only effective way out is to explain the point using Kant's model of critical analysis from the CPR which nevertheless end up with understanding the illusion for whatever it should be.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Burning ghost »

Spectrum wrote: July 27th, 2018, 12:36 am
Burning ghost wrote: July 26th, 2018, 8:32 am Nope, there is a limit to reason. It is dictated by intuitions. That which we cannot hold to is no thing to us (physically or mentally.) What is called knowledge is in some form comprehended. That which can not be comprehended in any form is no thing at all.

I think I see what fool was riling against now with the differentation betwee epistemology and ontology. Husserl pointed out, maybe faultily, that Kant presumed the existence of things. The phenomenal can be explored and the noumenal mark the territory of limit negatively. There is nothing to posit in terms of “positive noumenon.” This very discussion is existent as phenomenon. This is the trap of language. To discuss noumenon is a phenomenon - Husserl, for me at least, ironed out the broader scope of the term phenomenon.

Maybe I’ll go find a Kant museum :)
Heidegger main beef with Husserl is his concept of intentionality which thus imply the involvement of the subject that pollutes the question of Being.
that Kant presumed the existence of things.
That is totally wrong.
Kant's main thesis is things do not exist by themselves.
Things exist only on a qualified basis to their respective Framework and System.
Not totally wrong, just bad paraphrasing of Husserl’s critique of Kant. Have you read “Crisis”? I shouldn’t have said “things” merely Existence.

Heidegger wasn’t trained in mathematics or physics. Husserl was. Heidegger took up one part of Husserl’s phenomenology and ignored to bigger picture whilst lifting Husserl’s terminology and changing it to make it look more like his own work. The “Question of Being” as I believe you’ve pointed out, was in and of itself never outlined by Heidegger nor understood. He made a special little hermeneutic game for himself.

Note: there are scholars who’re still sifting through Husserl’s large body of work who’ve come to thr conclusion that most of Heidegger’s prominent ideas were in fact not his ideas at all. It has come to light that Husserl has documents that predate Heidegger - I cannot pretend that I don’t thik soem foul play was at hand and that perhaps, for good/bad reasons Heidegger as trying to make Husserl’s ideas public as his own.

What I would credit Heidegger with is his expansion of one segment of Husserl’s work - but it is only a segment: incomplete.
AKA badgerjelly
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Spectrum »

Burning ghost wrote: July 27th, 2018, 3:54 am
Spectrum wrote: July 27th, 2018, 12:36 am
Heidegger main beef with Husserl is his concept of intentionality which thus imply the involvement of the subject that pollutes the question of Being.



That is totally wrong.
Kant's main thesis is things do not exist by themselves.
Things exist only on a qualified basis to their respective Framework and System.
Not totally wrong, just bad paraphrasing of Husserl’s critique of Kant. Have you read “Crisis”? I shouldn’t have said “things” merely Existence.

Heidegger wasn’t trained in mathematics or physics. Husserl was. Heidegger took up one part of Husserl’s phenomenology and ignored to bigger picture whilst lifting Husserl’s terminology and changing it to make it look more like his own work. The “Question of Being” as I believe you’ve pointed out, was in and of itself never outlined by Heidegger nor understood. He made a special little hermeneutic game for himself.

Note: there are scholars who’re still sifting through Husserl’s large body of work who’ve come to thr conclusion that most of Heidegger’s prominent ideas were in fact not his ideas at all. It has come to light that Husserl has documents that predate Heidegger - I cannot pretend that I don’t thik soem foul play was at hand and that perhaps, for good/bad reasons Heidegger as trying to make Husserl’s ideas public as his own.

What I would credit Heidegger with is his expansion of one segment of Husserl’s work - but it is only a segment: incomplete.
I qualify, I am not an expert in Heidegger (3 months full time) nor Husserl [did some scanning].

Heidegger declared publicly Husserl was his mentor and he learned a lot from Husserl.
As I understand Heidegger's main contention with Husserl was the concept of intentionality within Husserl's phenomenology which Heidegger rejected as antithetic to his question and meaning of Being.

Are there any reference from Husserl's camp to dispute Heidegger's claim?
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Burning ghost »

Not from my camp. Just because it is apparently “antithetic” to Heidegger’s singular pursuit it makes no difference. Like I’ve said before Heidegger wasn’t doing phenomenology as Husserl set it out. If he had been he’d have looked further.

Really all Heidegger did, as far as I can tell, was offer up a question, avoid an attempt to answer it - or even state the question clearly - then create his ow set of terminology inherited from Husserlian ideas and used them in one specific instance of investigation.

From my perspective Husserl was vague rather than committing to one view over another. Heidegger took on the same path initially yet tried too hard and lost his way. He did however manage to express some of Husserl’s ideas more clearly than Husserl himself, but the “original” parts of Heidegger’s work are deeply obtuse, contrary and mostly vapid: by this I mean that he introduced too much terminological jargon without an effect to express the meaning behind them, then hid behind the idea of “hermeneutics” in effect leading to the growing trend of post-modern nonsense and pretentious drivel (although Heidegger wasn’t a fully fledged post-modernist by any means.)

I personally thank Heidegger for making my own ideas seems startling crystal clear compared to his web of pedantry on pedantry. What he said in 20 pages could’ve easily been summed up in a singular paragraph. If you wish to go through B&T again just skip the fluff and read the first paragraph and the last couple of paragraphs; the rest is mostly filler and puppetry.
AKA badgerjelly
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Fooloso4 »

Spectrum:
It is not my lone voice since I do align [not totally] with the Allison's camp.
Does Allison say that the thing in itself is an illusion? Where? No song and dance, just direct quotes stating that the thing in itself is an illusion.

I am not going to rehash your questionable interpretation again. Rather than provide evidence of Kant saying that the thing in itself is an illusion you fall back on the mistakes of the philosophical realist.

Burning ghost has rightly brought the discussion back to Heidegger, but you have made it abundantly clear that there is no point in me pursuing this or any other issue with you since you are convinced of your infallibility.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Burning ghost »

Fool -

I think I can point out the difference yourself and Spacrum are having (in part at least!):
The problem is the ambiguity of the term ‘thing’ or ‘object’. A thing in itself would be a transcendent rather than transcendental object. It is for us no thing because it is not something that we can be cognizant of. Kant does not, however, draw the conclusion from this that the thing in itself is an illusion of pure reason. It is simply a recognition of our limits. The illusion occurs when we attempt to go beyond those limits.
The issue here, although pedantic and obtuse, is that something that we cannot be cognizant of is no thing to us EVER. I feel this is why Spectrum keeps saying “illusion” rather than attempting to clarify what this means in the context of this conversation.

As analogywe could well say we’ll never know how the ancient Egyptians spoke. We cannot declare they spoke at all, yet we accept this. Is that an “illusion” we’ve created? No. In this respect knowing that someone spoke and knowing what they said/meant are two different things. Heidegger cares a great deal for this spending a great deal of time swimming in the linguistics and making them equivalent to experience rather than a mre expression of it. This is bound up in his “throwness” and Husserl’s “empty intentions.”

Heidegger tweaks the terminology of Husserl, but in my opinion not for the betterment of phenomenology at large. For artistic and interpretation and litrary theory it has ground, and of course these are all bound within phenomenon. If Heidegger didn’t appreciate the limitation of his pursuit, or purposely embraced it’s limits, I don’t know.

All said and done I’ve only read a limited amount myself so I am conflating my views with others too. It isn’t a singular task at hand here for any of us so we’d best try and be as genuine as we can with the words of others and our own - sometimes the distinction is less than obvious!
AKA badgerjelly
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Fooloso4 »

Burning ghost:
The issue here, although pedantic and obtuse, is that something that we cannot be cognizant of is no thing to us EVER.
I agree. This is the basis of a common criticism of Kant - how can we say that there is a thing in itself if we cannot be cognizant of it. This raises the question of whether it is based on a misunderstanding of him. Spectrum says it is. * His interpretation amounts to an attempt to force Kant to conform to his (Spectrum’s) own metaphysics - a metaphysics of “codependency” ** and “emergence from nothing”***. Spectrum thinks that his codependency theory is not unfounded speculation but knowledge of reality. The irony is that Kant is warning us against just suchspeculative metaphysics.


*
But because it is rather complex most of the later german philosophers [Hegel, Schelling, Schopenhauer, ] never grasped Kant's essential theory. (July 7th)
**
Point is the Universe is not totally independent of mind and not totally dependent on mind. There is an element of interdependence between the Universe and Mind.
What is the Universe is something that is emergent from spontaneity rather than something that is already there independent of mind and awaiting the mind to intercept it. (July 16th)

***
My point is the thing-in-itself is ultimately 'nothing'.
'Nothing' in this case is not in the sense of psychological solipsism nor nihilism.
'Nothing' in my case is the 'nothingness' or 'emptiness' from Buddhism. (July 15th)

What Kant believed is things are emergences that emerged spontaneously with the human conditions that enable its cognition.
Then we have representations of these emergences of cognition. (July 11th)
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021