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)