Monday, November 26, 2007
Re: Thoughts
My entry regarding faith and the transcendent was quite accurate, I just didnt know there was a name for it: ontotheology.
Relative and Objective
I realize that the last two posts contain postions for both relativity and objectivity. This is not inconsistent. Let me see if I can work this through...
There are two different types of objectivity needed by human beings. Concepts (like ethics) for which we need an objective foundation are relative to all of humanity. As stated before, it is actually this relativity that provides objectivity. The second type of objectivity relates to the 'physical world' and not to ideas or concepts. This objectivity creates for mankind assurance that you and I will both experience a 'dog' as a dog even if those experiences vary somewhat. There is some amount of overlap in the types of objectivity but my train of thought has been lost so I will have to elaborate on that at another time.
There are two different types of objectivity needed by human beings. Concepts (like ethics) for which we need an objective foundation are relative to all of humanity. As stated before, it is actually this relativity that provides objectivity. The second type of objectivity relates to the 'physical world' and not to ideas or concepts. This objectivity creates for mankind assurance that you and I will both experience a 'dog' as a dog even if those experiences vary somewhat. There is some amount of overlap in the types of objectivity but my train of thought has been lost so I will have to elaborate on that at another time.
Coming around...
I think that I can remove the ? after Heidegger's name in my earlier lists...the following is somewhat disjointed and stems from recent classes about Heidegger.
The question is whether or not, behind our philosophical baggage, that which we have now is only one of many possibilities or whether it is the only possibile manifestation of that which is human essence. Were there no Thales, Parmenides, Heraclitus, or the Holy Trinity (of philosophy) would we still be where we are now? Could we have had a new framework encompassing that which we consider within our current framework to be transcendent? Would some of what we now consider empirical or given be denoted as transcendent in another framework? Were there no Thales would another man have started us down the same path? Is it even possible to have gone down another path, assuming of course that other paths 'exist' or, more precisely, that there even exists the possibility of other modes of thinking regardless of actuality. If it is human 'essence' that has brought us to where we are now then how could we have become anything other? What does this say of 'essence'?
...Is there only one human 'essence'? The word essence seems to carry a connotation of singularity yet our fundamental inclination either for or against the transcendent certainly negates this idea of singularity. We have a philosophical dualism that continues to rear its ugly head again and again: Plato/Aristotle, rationalism/empiricism, idealism/pragmatism, analytic/continental. What about the Eastern/Western distinction? Is this not evidence of the dualistic nature of humanity? ...Perhaps even the word dualistic is to confining. With all of philosophy's 'progress' we return again and again to Plato and Aristotle. Surely, if we were able to relate to the world in another way sometime in the last 2500 years somebody would have found it. Again, must we think the way we do? Even if we were able to 'get behind' the pre-socratics would we not even be able to think diferently?
In some strange way I feel like I am ok with Heidegger. It "resonates" and as usual this is creating an interesting personal paradox which makes me feel a little ill.
As for dualism...maybe it is all just two 'paths' to the same goal, two sides of the same coin and our categorical nature separtes things into opposites when the distinction does not realy exsist.
Also realting to Heidegger but in different way:
If we are interconnected to, interdependent with, the world then there is no hard and fast division between appearance and reality. Reality will not 'presence' itself in a dramatically different fashion from what it is 'in itself'. If there are universal constraints that make the experience of one 'thing' close to the 'same' for all those who experience it. We can say that there is objectivity 'in the world'...
(P.S. I like scare quotes)
The question is whether or not, behind our philosophical baggage, that which we have now is only one of many possibilities or whether it is the only possibile manifestation of that which is human essence. Were there no Thales, Parmenides, Heraclitus, or the Holy Trinity (of philosophy) would we still be where we are now? Could we have had a new framework encompassing that which we consider within our current framework to be transcendent? Would some of what we now consider empirical or given be denoted as transcendent in another framework? Were there no Thales would another man have started us down the same path? Is it even possible to have gone down another path, assuming of course that other paths 'exist' or, more precisely, that there even exists the possibility of other modes of thinking regardless of actuality. If it is human 'essence' that has brought us to where we are now then how could we have become anything other? What does this say of 'essence'?
...Is there only one human 'essence'? The word essence seems to carry a connotation of singularity yet our fundamental inclination either for or against the transcendent certainly negates this idea of singularity. We have a philosophical dualism that continues to rear its ugly head again and again: Plato/Aristotle, rationalism/empiricism, idealism/pragmatism, analytic/continental. What about the Eastern/Western distinction? Is this not evidence of the dualistic nature of humanity? ...Perhaps even the word dualistic is to confining. With all of philosophy's 'progress' we return again and again to Plato and Aristotle. Surely, if we were able to relate to the world in another way sometime in the last 2500 years somebody would have found it. Again, must we think the way we do? Even if we were able to 'get behind' the pre-socratics would we not even be able to think diferently?
In some strange way I feel like I am ok with Heidegger. It "resonates" and as usual this is creating an interesting personal paradox which makes me feel a little ill.
As for dualism...maybe it is all just two 'paths' to the same goal, two sides of the same coin and our categorical nature separtes things into opposites when the distinction does not realy exsist.
Also realting to Heidegger but in different way:
If we are interconnected to, interdependent with, the world then there is no hard and fast division between appearance and reality. Reality will not 'presence' itself in a dramatically different fashion from what it is 'in itself'. If there are universal constraints that make the experience of one 'thing' close to the 'same' for all those who experience it. We can say that there is objectivity 'in the world'...
(P.S. I like scare quotes)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
