Yes...Nietzsche did teach contempt
---------- Post added 02-18-2010 at 06:13 PM ----------


.

I think it would be better if you told me what you mean by saying that it is possible that someone you meet on the street is a "figment of your imagination", since you don't think I understand what you mean. So, why don't you do that, and maybe we can short-circuit the dispute? And while you are at it, why not say what "your side of things" is? My side of things is that Heidegger tells us that "thinking" are "thanking" are semantically and conceptually related, and cites as evidence, etymology for which he has no evidence. What is your side of things? And of course, I gave you my understanding of what it would mean to say that it is possible that someone is a figment of your imagination. But you said that was not right. So now, I am waiting for you to tell me how I should understand what you meant.

The point is simple, things that are assumed to be real could just be concepts, and sometimes they are.

Oh yes, you are right if that is your point. We could always assume that something is real, and it turn out that we are mistaken. So what? Does that show that nothing is real? Or does that show that we cannot know when something is real? Of course not. After all, I can assume that something is a dog, and it may turn out to be a cat. What would that show? That there are no dogs? Or that I cannot know that something is a dog?

Is that really your point? That people sometimes make mistakes? Any other news you want to share with me?

It goes beyond simple mistakes, because you seem to limit mistakes to things in reality, instead of reality itself.

We sometimes do make mistakes about what is real or not. Like thinking that a mirage is an oasis. What else do you want to say? That there might be no reality? Why would you think that? Not just because it is possible, I hope. But, now, again, I have to repeat my question. What does it mean to say that it is possible that there is no reality? Have you any reply yet?

As I have already pointed out, there might be no reality is like saying, there might be no genuine money, and that it is possible that all our money is counterfeit. What would that mean? That even what we think is genuine money is really counterfeit money?

Oh good! Then he should not have minded the attitude some philosophers have about him.

"there might be no reality is like saying, there might be no genuine money"

There might be the wrong concept of reality, there might be the wrong concept of money.

If someone thinks a dollar can buy them a mansion, they are in trouble.
Now can you apply that to reality? That if our concept is wrong we are philosophically in trouble?

Nietzsche, at his best, was ahead of the game. Small wonder he has become so influential. The "death of God" provides a dangerous freedom to the species. If man is indeed alone down here, the master of Earth, then he is free to define his purposes.

The "death of God" is also the death of transcendent authority. Persuasion becomes God. Self-persuasion and the persuasion of others. If God is gone, the concept of reality as singular is also endangered. It's the return of Protagoras. Man is the measure of everything, including himself. Even this universal notion of Man is endangered.

Individual men (humans) are the measure of everything, including their individual selves.

You mean that all money, even the stuff put out by the U.S. Mint might be counterfeit money? Or just what do you mean when you say that our concept of money might be wrong? How? And how would that mean there is no money?

He knew so much that what he did not know, but only guessed at, was not apparent. And he did guess, and wildly so, and was often right, but he did not understand basic human relationships and so while stark, his portrait of humanity is deeply flawed...

"If someone thinks a dollar can buy them a mansion, they are in trouble."

That is an example of the wrong concept of money, wouldn't you agree? I'm trying to clear up what I mean, which is why I quoted you talking about counterfeit money and then manipulated your quote to match what I am trying to say.

You need to get past the example because it will always be incomplete. We are ill-adapted to discuss reality in everyday terms, but I am alluding to an everyday example so you can try and connect "concept of money" and replace it with "concept of reality".

Our concept of reality may not matter in an everyday sense, but to go forward in science it definitely does, and philosophy may also be reliant upon it.

So, what does it mean for it to be possible that there is no reality, if it is not like, it is possible that all money is counterfeit? I did not think you were saying there was no concept of reality. That is only false. I thought you were saying there was no reality. That is just nonsense. It is one of those things that the physicist Von Pauli remarked is "not only not true, it is not even false". Maybe an apt word for it, given this thread, is, "Heideggerian".

"no concept of reality"... where on earth did you see that being typed from my keyboard?

If you simplify my statements to a "yes" or "no", how can I move forward?

It is a cinch we are not moving forward the way you never give me a yes or no answer, so why not try it a different way? How would it be possible for there to be no reality? In what sense of "possible"? Or, by analogy, in what sense of "possible" would it be possible for all money to be counterfeit, even real money?

There you go again... talking about "no reality" as if that is what I was trying to say.

When I say "possible" do you assume I am hiding a "yes" or "no" behind it?

I am talking about possibly wrong concepts, and am giving examples as to why we should examine our concept of reality. It is not a fruitless pursuit.

To mention something from a week or so ago. You said you did not get the matrix example and you equated it to all the money in the world being counterfeit. However, the matrix is not dealing with something we have authority to call genuine or counterfeit, but rather with people who find out their concept of reality has been counterfeit and are exposed to a different concept of reality, whether that reality is genuine is another issue.

If all the money in the world is counterfeit, then it may as well be genuine. However, when there is conflict, two differently made bills that claim to be genuine money, then there is a reason to question. There are who knows how many theories about reality out there, so do you not see merit in the questioning because there is conflict?

Yes, what I don't understand is this notion of people finding out their concept of reality has been counterfeit.
What does it mean to say that if all the money in the world is counterfeit, it might as well be genuine? What does "counterfeit" mean in this context?

But again, I am fixated on what you might mean by the term, "possible" when you say that it is possible that the person you meet on the street is not real. Could you explain that to me? Nth request.

Counterfeit = genuine if there is no conflict. There is conflict so your example is a strawman.

Not real in the sense of not being manifested in the same way as other people you see on the street. If taking a pill makes someone you are seeing go away, then they are "not real".

On a separate note: If taking a pill makes everyone you are seeing go away, then either everyone is "not real", or you got some strong hallucinogenic pills!