Value from Heidegger's Being and Time

[ontological_realist]

2) In Hegel the same remains the case, in that he thought politics is more true than metaphysics. In fact, Hegel's metaphysics is political in essence. He speaks of "world spirit" (Geist) as an abstract reality that has its realization in politics and history. He marries his most abstract thoughts with concrete political examples.

Thanks for clarifying the differences between these philosophers. You seem to have good knowledge about the various idealist philosophers.

What does your following sentence mean?

he thought politics is more true than metaphysics.

 

[Achwienichtig]

I mean that, although it may seem like Hegel's philosophy contains lots of metaphysics, it really doesn't. Metaphysics usually refers to the question of what the world is made out of, i.e., what sort of stuff exists. Metaphysics is supposed to explain existence. Hegel's metaphysics, however, does not explain existence. Rather, his metaphysics is meant to explain the moral and political development of history. In essence, that really isn't metaphysics at all. Traditional metaphysics gets thrown to the wayside in Hegel, and a new political metaphysics gets formed.

 

[rousseau]

No matter who I ask, where I post about it, I can't seem to glean anything I find too interesting about his work, and maybe that's my issue with philosophy in general. A lot of philosophical theory seems to be based heavily on logic, which may come to accurate descriptors of reality, but a lot of it seems to far removed from anything practical about human experience, that in most respects it seems irrelevant to how I live my life.

Most times that I've dived into philosophy I haven't found much, although there have been a couple times when certain thinking has fundamentally changed how I looked at the world. That's usually what I hope for when I read philosophy, often I come up short.

 

[ontological_realist]

I mean that, although it may seem like Hegel's philosophy contains lots of metaphysics, it really doesn't. Metaphysics usually refers to the question of what the world is made out of, i.e., what sort of stuff exists. Metaphysics is supposed to explain existence. Hegel's metaphysics, however, does not explain existence. Rather, his metaphysics is meant to explain the moral and political development of history. In essence, that really isn't metaphysics at all. Traditional metaphysics gets thrown to the wayside in Hegel, and a new political metaphysics gets formed.

Thanks.

Now, can you tell me that what is to you the central and the most important idea of Kant?

 

[ontological_realist]

No matter who I ask, where I post about it, I can't seem to glean anything I find too interesting about his work, and maybe that's my issue with philosophy in general. A lot of philosophical theory seems to be based heavily on logic, which may come to accurate descriptors of reality, but a lot of it seems to far removed from anything practical about human experience, that in most respects it seems irrelevant to how I live my life.

Most times that I've dived into philosophy I haven't found much, although there have been a couple times when certain thinking has fundamentally changed how I looked at the world. That's usually what I hope for when I read philosophy, often I come up short.

although there have been a couple times when certain thinking has fundamentally changed how I looked at the world.

Any examples?

 

[rousseau]

No matter who I ask, where I post about it, I can't seem to glean anything I find too interesting about his work, and maybe that's my issue with philosophy in general. A lot of philosophical theory seems to be based heavily on logic, which may come to accurate descriptors of reality, but a lot of it seems to far removed from anything practical about human experience, that in most respects it seems irrelevant to how I live my life.

Most times that I've dived into philosophy I haven't found much, although there have been a couple times when certain thinking has fundamentally changed how I looked at the world. That's usually what I hope for when I read philosophy, often I come up short.

although there have been a couple times when certain thinking has fundamentally changed how I looked at the world.

Any examples?

Hume's 'Theory of Substances' comes to mind as a major one.

The idea was that as you come to more information about something, your understanding and the definition of that thing changes. You've realized more properties about the thing.

Prior to reading that theory I had a blurry world-view about *coming to know the nature of the world* as if it were a binary that one could turn on and off, like it were possible for someone to be *enlightened*. When I read the theory, though, I came to better understand the interface between mind and the world:

- People continually learn more and more properties about the world as time goes by, and as they learn more properties about it they are better able to manipulate it

So I realized that my world-view about *enlightenment* was mostly nonsense, and that the reality of my understanding of the world was that I was continually gaining more information.

This also had the side-effect of doing away with a bit of personal ego-mania. I realized that I didn't have any 'other-worldly' knowledge, but was instead just a very knowledgeable person.

 

[ontological_realist]

although there have been a couple times when certain thinking has fundamentally changed how I looked at the world.

Any examples?

Hume's 'Theory of Substances' comes to mind as a major one.

The idea was that as you come to more information about something, your understanding and the definition of that thing changes. You've realized more properties about the thing.

Prior to reading that theory I had a blurry world-view about *coming to know the nature of the world* as if it were a binary that one could turn on and off, like it were possible for someone to be *enlightened*. When I read the theory, though, I came to better understood the interface between mind and the world:

- People continually learn more and more properties about the world as time goes by, and as they learn more properties about it they are better able to manipulate it

So I realized that my world-view about *enlightenment* was mostly nonsense, and that the reality of my understanding of the world was that I was continually gaining more information.

This also had the side-effect of doing away with a bit of personal ego-mania. I realized that I didn't have any 'other-worldly' knowledge, but was instead just a very knowledgeable person.

Great idea. Hume was a deep thinker. He is rightly regarded as the greatest English speaking philosopher of all times. I agree with this idea. It is also nice to see that it removed a major delusion in your world view and you had enough love of truth to accept it. I have learned some thing by your post.

Kant wrote that Hume had awakened him from his dogmatic slumbers. Kant took off from where Hume had left.
Do you understand Kant's so called copernican revolution in thought?

 

[rousseau]

Hume's 'Theory of Substances' comes to mind as a major one.

The idea was that as you come to more information about something, your understanding and the definition of that thing changes. You've realized more properties about the thing.

Prior to reading that theory I had a blurry world-view about *coming to know the nature of the world* as if it were a binary that one could turn on and off, like it were possible for someone to be *enlightened*. When I read the theory, though, I came to better understood the interface between mind and the world:

- People continually learn more and more properties about the world as time goes by, and as they learn more properties about it they are better able to manipulate it

So I realized that my world-view about *enlightenment* was mostly nonsense, and that the reality of my understanding of the world was that I was continually gaining more information.

This also had the side-effect of doing away with a bit of personal ego-mania. I realized that I didn't have any 'other-worldly' knowledge, but was instead just a very knowledgeable person.

Great idea. Hume was a deep thinker. He is rightly regarded as the greatest English speaking philosopher of all times. I agree with this idea. It is also nice to see that it removed a major delusion in your world view and you had enough love of truth to accept it. I have learned some thing by your post.

Kant wrote that Hume had awakened him from his dogmatic slumbers. Kant took off from where Hume had left.
Do you understand Kant's so called copernican revolution in thought?

I do not. Go on?

 

[ontological_realist]

Great idea. Hume was a deep thinker. He is rightly regarded as the greatest English speaking philosopher of all times. I agree with this idea. It is also nice to see that it removed a major delusion in your world view and you had enough love of truth to accept it. I have learned some thing by your post.

Kant wrote that Hume had awakened him from his dogmatic slumbers. Kant took off from where Hume had left.
Do you understand Kant's so called copernican revolution in thought?

I do not. Go on?

What do you think about this:-


http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Kant/kant.html


----------------

 

[rousseau]

I do not. Go on?

What do you think about this:-


http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Kant/kant.html


----------------

Seems like I'd need to read a deeper analysis of his work to respond better, but I do agree with the view that *reality* is mostly shaped by the conceptual framework that exists in our mind. However, I don't know if I feel completely comfortable in describing the mind's process as an *active* one, in the sense that the conceptual framework that exists in the mind is ultimately constrained by our experience. In other words, we can use our experiences to shape our picture of reality, but our experiences themselves are the ultimate dictator (we can't see outside of our experience until our experience allows us to do so).

 

[PyramidHead]

I think that in essence, there is a simple way to adjudicate between unique perspectives, if they are in conflict: which one better explains sense data? It's not that physicists hold that the universe consists of particles because of some whimsical preference, after all. Nor would most of them deny that the universe also consists of objects. Both models are good at predicting what sensory information will be incoming under certain circumstances. By contrast, the metaphysical view that the universe is comprised of pecan pie fails this test. So, while our models may be artificial representations, they are not wholly arbitrary, and some are clearly more accurate than others.

Which one better explains sense data?: From the same thing, different subjects will receive different sense data. If a dog whistle is blown, dogs will receive auditory sense data but not humans. Human eyes can receive visual sense data only within a certain frequency of light. All human senses can receive sense data only within a certain range and not outside of it. Bats can receive sense data (some radar like system which I do not remember now) and humans do not have that sense. There may be many senses which humans( including human scientists), do not even know that they do not have. The same goes for human powers of understanding, human mind or consciousness. Human senses and mind can not know what is really existing and happening
in reality. To understand this, imagine a five letter word written so that each of it's letters is written in a different color out of which humans can be aware of only three colors. Then humans can not know what the word is.

The problem of different sense data is resolved by using more sensitive apparatus. The only reason you know that dog whistles produce a super-sonic frequency is because of such instruments. All of the things you mention are evidence that humans can augment their sensory capacity to obtain more reliable and accurate data, otherwise the use of sonar by some bats would be unknown to you. The model of reality that says "all things are made of pecan pie" cannot be rescued by appealing to the possibility that we lack the right kind of sensory organs to observe the pecan pies that constitute the universe; until there is positive evidence for the hypothesis, it will always lose against models that predict something we actually observe using instruments that consistently yield data that are verifiable to others.

 

[ontological_realist]

What do you think about this:-


http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Kant/kant.html


----------------

Seems like I'd need to read a deeper analysis of his work to respond better, but I do agree with the view that *reality* is mostly shaped by the conceptual framework that exists in our mind. However, I don't know if I feel completely comfortable in describing the mind's process as an *active* one, in the sense that the conceptual framework that exists in the mind is ultimately constrained by our experience. In other words, we can use our experiences to shape our picture of reality, but our experiences themselves are the ultimate dictator (we can't see outside of our experience until our experience allows us to do so).

I did not understand clearly what you are saying here. Perhaps you can explain with examples?

 

[ontological_realist]

Which one better explains sense data?: From the same thing, different subjects will receive different sense data. If a dog whistle is blown, dogs will receive auditory sense data but not humans. Human eyes can receive visual sense data only within a certain frequency of light. All human senses can receive sense data only within a certain range and not outside of it. Bats can receive sense data (some radar like system which I do not remember now) and humans do not have that sense. There may be many senses which humans( including human scientists), do not even know that they do not have. The same goes for human powers of understanding, human mind or consciousness. Human senses and mind can not know what is really existing and happening
in reality. To understand this, imagine a five letter word written so that each of it's letters is written in a different color out of which humans can be aware of only three colors. Then humans can not know what the word is.

The problem of different sense data is resolved by using more sensitive apparatus. The only reason you know that dog whistles produce a super-sonic frequency is because of such instruments. All of the things you mention are evidence that humans can augment their sensory capacity to obtain more reliable and accurate data, otherwise the use of sonar by some bats would be unknown to you. The model of reality that says "all things are made of pecan pie" cannot be rescued by appealing to the possibility that we lack the right kind of sensory organs to observe the pecan pies that constitute the universe; until there is positive evidence for the hypothesis, it will always lose against models that predict something we actually observe using instruments that consistently yield data that are verifiable to others.

I agree that the examples of the dog whistles and bat sonar etc. show that humans can augment their sensory capacity by science and reasoning. Humans can and do increase their understanding this way.

But any information and understanding a scientist can get from his instruments still depends ultimately upon the scientist's senses and the structure of the scientist's mind. Instruments are just a tool.
For example, imagine a biologist is looking through a microscope and he concludes that he is seeing bacteria. Then he goes away to wash room and his dog happens to look through the microscope. Then the dog will not come to the conclusion that there are bacteria there. Dog's mind's structure and capabilities are not adequate for this purpose. A blind man will also not get information from a microscope by putting his eyes on the lens.

 

[ontological_realist]

I had an eye operation. Now the world looks different to me than what it looked to me before the eye operation.

How does the world really (objectively) look, as I see it now or as I saw it before?

 

[Kharakov]

Still looks like a place in which lots of people live and learn, ehh? Ohh, wait, you're from Canada. Nevermind.

 

[PyramidHead]

The problem of different sense data is resolved by using more sensitive apparatus. The only reason you know that dog whistles produce a super-sonic frequency is because of such instruments. All of the things you mention are evidence that humans can augment their sensory capacity to obtain more reliable and accurate data, otherwise the use of sonar by some bats would be unknown to you. The model of reality that says "all things are made of pecan pie" cannot be rescued by appealing to the possibility that we lack the right kind of sensory organs to observe the pecan pies that constitute the universe; until there is positive evidence for the hypothesis, it will always lose against models that predict something we actually observe using instruments that consistently yield data that are verifiable to others.

I agree that the examples of the dog whistles and bat sonar etc. show that humans can augment their sensory capacity by science and reasoning. Humans can and do increase their understanding this way.

But any information and understanding a scientist can get from his instruments still depends ultimately upon the scientist's senses and the structure of the scientist's mind. Instruments are just a tool.
For example, imagine a biologist is looking through a microscope and he concludes that he is seeing bacteria. Then he goes away to wash room and his dog happens to look through the microscope. Then the dog will not come to the conclusion that there are bacteria there. Dog's mind's structure and capabilities are not adequate for this purpose. A blind man will also not get information from a microscope by putting his eyes on the lens.

I agree.

 

[rousseau]

Seems like I'd need to read a deeper analysis of his work to respond better, but I do agree with the view that *reality* is mostly shaped by the conceptual framework that exists in our mind. However, I don't know if I feel completely comfortable in describing the mind's process as an *active* one, in the sense that the conceptual framework that exists in the mind is ultimately constrained by our experience. In other words, we can use our experiences to shape our picture of reality, but our experiences themselves are the ultimate dictator (we can't see outside of our experience until our experience allows us to do so).

I did not understand clearly what you are saying here. Perhaps you can explain with examples?

Look at the sum total of your life experience (conversations, travel, education etc) as what your mind has come in contact with. That experience is the 'material' that your mind absorbs to build a conceptual framework (and by conceptual framework I mean a world-view and subjective understanding of the world that we use to filter and analyse new information as well as observe reality with).

So the reason why I'm hesitant to call the mind 'active' in the strictest sense is because ultimately it's a persons life experience that allows them to think certain thoughts. Without experience there is no learning, with no learning there is no conceptual framework, with no conceptual framework there is nothing to assimilate new information with. Imagine putting a newborn in an empty room and giving him/her nothing but his/her basic needs for their entire life. If this baby weren't able to absorb new information from the outside world, it would have nothing with which to reason or learn.

So I agree that *reality* is seen through a subjective lens that exists in our mind, but I think the make-up of our mind has as much to do with what we're exposed to as what we think about.

 

[ontological_realist]

Section 3. Kant's Copernican Revolution: Mind Making Nature. in:-

http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/#H3


-----

 

[Juma]

Look at the sum total of your life experience (conversations, travel, education etc) as what your mind has come in contact with. That experience is the 'material' that your mind absorbs to build a conceptual framework (and by conceptual framework I mean a world-view and subjective understanding of the world that we use to filter and analyse new information as well as observe reality with).

Most of this framework is actually inherited.

 

[ontological_realist]

Look at the sum total of your life experience (conversations, travel, education etc) as what your mind has come in contact with. That experience is the 'material' that your mind absorbs to build a conceptual framework (and by conceptual framework I mean a world-view and subjective understanding of the world that we use to filter and analyse new information as well as observe reality with).

Most of this framework is actually inherited.

Yes, like instincts. A baby(whether human or other animals) knows instinctively how to draw milk from it's mother's breast. It does not need to learn it from anybody. it's mind, through genes or other mechanisms has this capability already sort of hard wired in to it.

-----------------------------------------------------------


I had an eye operation. Now the world looks different to me than what it looked to me before the eye operation.

How does the world really (objectively) look, as I see it now or as I saw it before?



Section 3. Kant's Copernican Revolution: Mind Making Nature. in:-

http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/#H3


---------------