being and time (small philosophy exercice for a friend)
September 23rd 2009 08:54
One of the hardest points to understand in phylosophy allways seemed to me a problem of quality of explanation (once i understood the solution for it, of course). It is the solution for the antinomy between Realism and Idealism created following Kant's philosophy.
Let me explain from the beginning: when Kan't proposed that the interpretation we have from the hold is not exactly what it is - the representation problem, the difference between Noumena (what things are) and Phenomena (what things are for us) - he created a problem: how can we prove that the world in front of you is real?
Actually this problem is quite older, it dates from the Greeks, you can see it on the Allegory of the cave. This problem was solved by Cartesians by saying that it was God that guaranteed that Noumena = Phenomena. Kant wanted to surpass this, so he considered this hypothesis invalid.
After this point he developed his hole "Shematics" phylosophy which made the link between Empirists and Cartesianists. This theory is what generates the concepts, intuitions and ideas, which we used to propose a more mathematical approach using the infinite transforms and link it to Nietzsche's philosophy. But this is not the point for today's post.
The root problem of prooving that the world was real (or not) could not be solved by Kant. Thus after him we had a hole generation of people that developed the Idealism, and could not solve it either.
It was only in the beginning of the XXth century that Husserl started to find the solution for this issue (which is not a real solution, but it seems to me more the acceptance of our incapability): the transcendental ego proposed was that the being should not be studied separated from the reality it lives, because no analysis is possible in this way.
This means: it is pointless to study the being apart from the reality, and thus it is pointless to ask the question if the outside world is real or not.
Following this path, Heidegger came with Dasein: his "being there". There is no meaning to study the being without the reality where he is imerged. And more than just the simple reality around you, the most important step of Heidegger is that it's the hole history which has to be taken into account for the study of beings (mostly for men).
Then we have Sartre, who came with a pretty sentence to add to Heidegger's philosophy: existence precedes essence. This means that we exist, then we define a reason for being, in function of the history (the reality) around us.
From Heidegger and Sartre we have found that men are born opened: we can be, in function of our inborn capacities, anything that history allows us to be.
All of this to conclude that: when you read those "be yourself" logos from any clothing shop or fast food chain, send them to hell: 20 centuries of philosophy are there to proove us that we can be anything, and even change it tomorrow.
Let me explain from the beginning: when Kan't proposed that the interpretation we have from the hold is not exactly what it is - the representation problem, the difference between Noumena (what things are) and Phenomena (what things are for us) - he created a problem: how can we prove that the world in front of you is real?
Actually this problem is quite older, it dates from the Greeks, you can see it on the Allegory of the cave. This problem was solved by Cartesians by saying that it was God that guaranteed that Noumena = Phenomena. Kant wanted to surpass this, so he considered this hypothesis invalid.
After this point he developed his hole "Shematics" phylosophy which made the link between Empirists and Cartesianists. This theory is what generates the concepts, intuitions and ideas, which we used to propose a more mathematical approach using the infinite transforms and link it to Nietzsche's philosophy. But this is not the point for today's post.
The root problem of prooving that the world was real (or not) could not be solved by Kant. Thus after him we had a hole generation of people that developed the Idealism, and could not solve it either.
It was only in the beginning of the XXth century that Husserl started to find the solution for this issue (which is not a real solution, but it seems to me more the acceptance of our incapability): the transcendental ego proposed was that the being should not be studied separated from the reality it lives, because no analysis is possible in this way.
This means: it is pointless to study the being apart from the reality, and thus it is pointless to ask the question if the outside world is real or not.
Following this path, Heidegger came with Dasein: his "being there". There is no meaning to study the being without the reality where he is imerged. And more than just the simple reality around you, the most important step of Heidegger is that it's the hole history which has to be taken into account for the study of beings (mostly for men).
Then we have Sartre, who came with a pretty sentence to add to Heidegger's philosophy: existence precedes essence. This means that we exist, then we define a reason for being, in function of the history (the reality) around us.
From Heidegger and Sartre we have found that men are born opened: we can be, in function of our inborn capacities, anything that history allows us to be.
All of this to conclude that: when you read those "be yourself" logos from any clothing shop or fast food chain, send them to hell: 20 centuries of philosophy are there to proove us that we can be anything, and even change it tomorrow.
| 10 |
| Vote |
Add Comments
Read More
Comment by Uula Limanski
on Transcending...
Thinking The World
Uula