Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Heidigger, Heidigger was a boozy beggar...
I almost got very angry with Martin Heidigger. I picked up his book "An Introduction to Metaphysics" and almost lost it. Granted, I've been reading Arthur C. Clarke again as well, and Clarke's dismissive and insulting tone towards religion always makes me hypersensitive.
Anyway, Heidigger starts with the foundational question "Why are there things instead of nothing?" This is not the first question chrolonolically, but the foundational question that underlies every other philosophical examination. To quote:
As I said, I almost got mad. It seemed to start as dismissive of believers as philosophers, or at least as philosophers who can study metaphysics. But I calmed down when I got to the last line. I don't know about perpetual exposing to the possiblity of unfaith. That seems to me far too extreme for rational or practical thought. I believe in God, and it is a waste of my time to spend all of my time looking for signs that God does not exist. It is also not healthy for my relationship with God. Imagine having a boss who tells you that he trusts you but constantly asks your co-workers what mistakes you've made. That's not a healthy relationship. Imagine spending all of your time at work bitching about the incompetence of your boss. That's not healthy, Dilbert not withstanding.
But does that mean I don't allow any notion that God may not exist to cross my mind, or that I shun them as if they are attacks on my faith? No. That's a false alternative. The opposite of 'always' is not 'never,' but 'not always' meaning 'not all the time' meaning 'often' to 'rarely'.
I do succumb to the materialist nightmare that this world as our eyes perceive it is the only world and death is final. My best defense is instead of being satisfied in the next life, to be satisfied at the end of this life that I have made a positive change on the world.
I think Heidigger's question is interesting, but I also think it's worthless in some way. Clearly we exist. Even if we are an illusion is some other mind, to us time is mostly seamless, existence is continuous. I cannot imagine non existence (hence my occasional materialist nightmare) any more than I can imagine the non existence of God. ¶ 3:10 PM
Anyway, Heidigger starts with the foundational question "Why are there things instead of nothing?" This is not the first question chrolonolically, but the foundational question that underlies every other philosophical examination. To quote:
Anyone for whom the Bible is divine revelation and truth has the answer to the question "Why are there essents rather than nothing?" even before it is asked: everything that is, except God himself, has been created by Him. God himself, the increate creator, "is." One who holds to such faith can in a way particiapte in the asking of our question, but he cannot really question without ceasing to be a believer and taking all the consequesnces of such a step. He will only be able to act "as if" ... One the other hand a fatih that does not perpetually expose itself to the possibility of unfaith is not faith but merely a convenience...
As I said, I almost got mad. It seemed to start as dismissive of believers as philosophers, or at least as philosophers who can study metaphysics. But I calmed down when I got to the last line. I don't know about perpetual exposing to the possiblity of unfaith. That seems to me far too extreme for rational or practical thought. I believe in God, and it is a waste of my time to spend all of my time looking for signs that God does not exist. It is also not healthy for my relationship with God. Imagine having a boss who tells you that he trusts you but constantly asks your co-workers what mistakes you've made. That's not a healthy relationship. Imagine spending all of your time at work bitching about the incompetence of your boss. That's not healthy, Dilbert not withstanding.
But does that mean I don't allow any notion that God may not exist to cross my mind, or that I shun them as if they are attacks on my faith? No. That's a false alternative. The opposite of 'always' is not 'never,' but 'not always' meaning 'not all the time' meaning 'often' to 'rarely'.
I do succumb to the materialist nightmare that this world as our eyes perceive it is the only world and death is final. My best defense is instead of being satisfied in the next life, to be satisfied at the end of this life that I have made a positive change on the world.
I think Heidigger's question is interesting, but I also think it's worthless in some way. Clearly we exist. Even if we are an illusion is some other mind, to us time is mostly seamless, existence is continuous. I cannot imagine non existence (hence my occasional materialist nightmare) any more than I can imagine the non existence of God. ¶ 3:10 PM
Comments:
<< Home
"I think Heidigger's question is interesting, but I also think it's worthless in some way. Clearly we exist."
Consider Heidigger's response, from early in the Introduction to Metaphysics: "It is entirely correct and completely in order to say, 'You can't do anything with philosophy.' The only mistake is to believe that with this, the judgment concerning philosophy is at an end. For a little epilogue arises in the form of a counterquestion: even if we can't do anything with it, may not philosophy in the end do something with us, provided that we engage ourselves with it? Let that suffice for us as an explication of what philosophy is not."
Consider Heidigger's response, from early in the Introduction to Metaphysics: "It is entirely correct and completely in order to say, 'You can't do anything with philosophy.' The only mistake is to believe that with this, the judgment concerning philosophy is at an end. For a little epilogue arises in the form of a counterquestion: even if we can't do anything with it, may not philosophy in the end do something with us, provided that we engage ourselves with it? Let that suffice for us as an explication of what philosophy is not."
And Heidegger would say that in order for philosophy to do anything with us, we must be willing to ask questions sincerely, especially the questions Christianity claims to have answered.
"I don't know about perpetual exposing to the possiblity of unfaith. That seems to me far too extreme for rational or practical thought."
Heidegger: "One expects philosophy to promote, and even to accelerate, the practical and technical business of culture by alleviating it, making it easier. But - according to its essence, philosophy never makes things easier, but only more difficult. And it does so not just incidentally, not just because its manner of communication seems strange or even deranged to everyday understanding. The burdening of historical Dasein, and thereby at bottom of Being itself, is rather the genuine sense of what philosophy can achieve. Burdening gives back to things, to beings, their weight (Being). And why? Because burdening is one of the essential and fundamental conditions for the arising of everything great, among which we include above all else the fate of a historical people and its works. But fate is there only when a true knowing about things rules over Dasein. And the avenues and views of such a knowing are opened up by philosophy.
Post a Comment
Heidegger: "One expects philosophy to promote, and even to accelerate, the practical and technical business of culture by alleviating it, making it easier. But - according to its essence, philosophy never makes things easier, but only more difficult. And it does so not just incidentally, not just because its manner of communication seems strange or even deranged to everyday understanding. The burdening of historical Dasein, and thereby at bottom of Being itself, is rather the genuine sense of what philosophy can achieve. Burdening gives back to things, to beings, their weight (Being). And why? Because burdening is one of the essential and fundamental conditions for the arising of everything great, among which we include above all else the fate of a historical people and its works. But fate is there only when a true knowing about things rules over Dasein. And the avenues and views of such a knowing are opened up by philosophy.
<< Home
