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?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Post Reply
Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

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

Post by Spectrum » July 28th, 2018, 1:18 am

Fooloso4 wrote:
July 27th, 2018, 7:58 am
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.
This is merely a discussion so it will go as far as we can take it. This discussion is like a potluck gathering where each participant contribute and each eat what they like from others but not necessary must eat everything that is brought to the table.

Whilst my views agree with Allison's I am not relying on him as my authority. My authority is based on what I have read directly from the CPR.

Allison did not equate the thing-in-itself with 'illusion' directly but some others did.

I suggest you explore more if you have the intent and time.

There are many types of illusion and the issue here is that of a transcendental illusion.

The common illusions are those of the senses, especially sight,, bent stick in water, etc..
What we do not encounter often are those of feel, taste, hearing, smells.
Note illusions in Music,
https://dianadeutsch.bandcamp.com/album ... -paradoxes

When we shift perspectives, the prior perspective could be illusory.
You think the marble you feel is solid? In another perspective that marble is 99.9999 empty space of particles travelling at speed of light to give you an illusion of a feel of hardness and solidness.

Next we have illusion of thoughts and common reason.
Illusion in common logic are exposed as fallacies.

But there are also illusions in transcendental logic which is not very obvious and need very serious reflection to understand.
The transcendental ideas are transcendental illusion arising from transcendental logic which is thought based [not senses like empirical illusion].
The issue is when the majority take this supposedly transcendental illusions as an objectively real thing empirically [e.g. the most real God] and this end up with terrible evils and violence which can be a very serious threat to humanity.

Whilst you may not have taken such transcendental illusions empirically, you are taking them as 'something' somewhere in mind and you just cannot understand how these illusions are illusory in nature as Kant has claimed.

My view of such transcendental illusions is critical to deal with the following;

1. the threat arising the ultimate source of all evils related to this;
Image

2. An effective Framework and System of Morality & Ethics to leverage Perpetual Peace.

So my views are not based on some instant evil impulse but for the sake of the well being of humanity in the long run.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3397
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

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

Post by Fooloso4 » July 28th, 2018, 10:16 am

Spectrum:
Allison did not equate the thing-in-itself with 'illusion' directly but some others did.

I suggest you explore more if you have the intent and time.
Using your potluck analogy, if you bring a dish and claim it does not contain nuts it is not up to someone else who might have a nut allergy to explore more to find out if that is true or not. If you make a claim then you need to be able to back it up. Who are these others? What exactly did they say and where did they say it?
My view of such transcendental illusions …
What is at issue is not your view of transcendental illusion but Kant’s. On the one hand you import and impose a metaphysics on the text and on the other cannot see past your own anti-theism so cannot distinguish between what you believe and what Kant actually said. You can bring your dish to the “potluck gathering” but whether it is fit to eat depends on the ingredients. If you claim you are following Kant’s recipe but put nuts in it even though the recipe does not call for nuts the dish you serve is suspect and anyone who is going to eat it should be warned that contrary to Kant's recipe it contains nuts.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

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

Post by Spectrum » July 29th, 2018, 12:09 am

Fooloso4 wrote:
July 28th, 2018, 10:16 am
Spectrum:
Allison did not equate the thing-in-itself with 'illusion' directly but some others did.

I suggest you explore more if you have the intent and time.
Using your potluck analogy, if you bring a dish and claim it does not contain nuts it is not up to someone else who might have a nut allergy to explore more to find out if that is true or not. If you make a claim then you need to be able to back it up. Who are these others? What exactly did they say and where did they say it?
My view of such transcendental illusions …
What is at issue is not your view of transcendental illusion but Kant’s. On the one hand you import and impose a metaphysics on the text and on the other cannot see past your own anti-theism so cannot distinguish between what you believe and what Kant actually said. You can bring your dish to the “potluck gathering” but whether it is fit to eat depends on the ingredients. If you claim you are following Kant’s recipe but put nuts in it even though the recipe does not call for nuts the dish you serve is suspect and anyone who is going to eat it should be warned that contrary to Kant's recipe it contains nuts.
What I had presented is Kant's original recipe.
While Allison did not venture into illusion specifically, some within his camp did.
If you ever dig further you are likely to come across it.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Post Reply