Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Aug 4, 2017 at 14:22 comment added Gordon @AmeetSharma You are in the ballgame Ameet. You get it. We still keep the old way, but we are expanding our ontology. Making it more complete you might say. This is a corrective dose.
Aug 4, 2017 at 14:11 comment added Gordon The present-to-hand attitude (note attitude) we might say is our scientific attitude. However, if we take physics for example, we have come a ways since Newton. When you get on the edges of physics, quantum and so on, here place is less sure, Einstein, time you might say is less sure. Not so precise and loosely speaking "Cartesian".
Aug 4, 2017 at 13:56 comment added Ameet Sharma @Gordon, This is all well and good for phenomenology. But I don't see why a cartesian dualist would reject any of this. Heidegger is just explaining our experience. A cartesian dualist can agree that this is the way our experience is, and still be a cartesian dualist.
Aug 4, 2017 at 13:41 comment added Gordon As Heidegger's follower Gadamer said truth exceeds method. I would say it certainly exceeds our traditional method. The problem with Heidegger and Gadamer is that it is possible with them to go too far the other way and get too mystical, too tradition bound, anti-reason. Nevertheless this was a good dose of corrective to Western ontology.
Aug 4, 2017 at 13:31 comment added Gordon Btw i-Ruth's answer is very good regarding Dasein. The method of our traditional ontology, substance and attributes, subject-object, all of that, let us say the breaking into pieces, analyzing type thinking, present to hand, etc. does not completely capture being. This view of being if carried too far can be dangerous.
Aug 4, 2017 at 13:03 comment added Gordon @AmeetSharma This is probably the interview with Brian Magee he did. I didn't click on it. Don't get hung up on Dasein here.
Aug 4, 2017 at 12:59 comment added Gordon @AmeetSharma What he's really talking about is the difference between the attitude of present-to-hand (think here subject-object, traditional being as things, Cartesian world, Husserl), and ready-to-hand (being as being, coping, sort of on the automatic mode). Present-to-hand thinking we still perform when we plan, analyze and so on, rational planning is still needed, however if this type of thinking is carried too far it can actually destroy the world. Whereas ready-to-hand type being (being as being) Western philosophy has neglected. Heidegger aims to correct this.
Aug 4, 2017 at 11:05 comment added Ameet Sharma Hmmm... I don't think I understand. If Dasein is explainable by physics, but irreducible to our method... do you mean physics always contains something more than "our methods of discovering natural kinds" ?
Aug 4, 2017 at 3:19 history answered l_ruth_ CC BY-SA 3.0