Heidegger's advice to his students

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 07:43 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;130158 wrote:
Sneaky. I can accuse of homonym?

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 08:34 PM ----------

The bills don't have to be identical. Their serial numbers vary. (Let's refine this.)

A trusted source, hypothetically perfect, assures a currency expert that one of two bills is counterfeit. It has been manufactured perfectly. It's an ideal counterfeit.

The expert cannot determine which bill is the so-called counterfeit. His boss tells him "screw it. Let's both just take one randomly and spend it."

They use the bills at the mall. They do not write down the serial numbers. A month later, what is the status of the two bills, from a practical point of view? The tiniest dew-drop of inflation?

---------- Post added 02-19-2010 at 08:36 PM ----------



./QUOTE]

From a practical point of view, I have no idea. But from the point of view of reality, they are different. And not only are they counterfeit, but they have different numbers,
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 10:35 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;130124 wrote:
Exactly 90 degrees off point. The point is that even an undetectable difference between X and Y is still a difference, and so, X and Y cannot be identical. (You can do whatever you please with the bills. It is irrelevant to the issue).


Why do you always get so stuck on examples? How about we talk about X's playdough and Y's playdough, would you have to nitpick that as well?
 
Fido
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 12:44 am
@Twirlip,
Actually, if x and y are lines they are identical...And even if the angles were off they would be reciprical, so esentially equal...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 01:14 am
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;130186 wrote:
Why do you always get so stuck on examples? How about we talk about X's playdough and Y's playdough, would you have to nitpick that as well?


Because, as Kant wrote, "Examples are the go-cart of the intellect". If the examples don't work, then there is probably something wrong with the view they are examples of. The general point is this: it doesn't follow that because the differences between X and Y are undetectable, that there is no difference between X and Y. Don't you agree?
 
Fido
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 02:04 am
@Twirlip,
No; go carts are an example of the intellect, without which along with its like the intellect would be another empty idea...
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 03:05 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;130573 wrote:
Because, as Kant wrote, "Examples are the go-cart of the intellect". If the examples don't work, then there is probably something wrong with the view they are examples of. The general point is this: it doesn't follow that because the differences between X and Y are undetectable, that there is no difference between X and Y. Don't you agree?


Of course I would agree, but I have explicitly stated why a distinguishable difference is important, because this is all meant to occur at a first-person level, and if an individual is trying to be justified that what he thinks is X is not actually Y, then there'd better be a distinguishable difference. The same applies in broad terms to different views on reality, because we are all "first-person" viewers. If there is a distinguishable difference between two views of reality, then one has to justify if view X or view Y is the non-fake view.

If you'd like to be more constructive, try to think of another example that does succeed, like me thinking up playdough, that way you can ask the other person if that's what they meant. It's much more constructive then coming up with another example that you think proves them wrong, like genuine and counterfeit money.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 04:45 am
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;130603 wrote:
The same applies in broad terms to different views on reality, because we are all "first-person" viewers.


This is what so many neglect.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 08:56 am
@Twirlip,
But at the same time, it might be suggested that in broad terms, we don't view all of reality the same way, or, turning to rephrase it, that we are in some circumstances able to transcend our "first person" viewpoint. Heidegger seems to be saying something like this in Being and Time.
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 09:52 am
@jgweed,
jgweed;130708 wrote:
But at the same time, it might be suggested that in broad terms, we don't view all of reality the same way, or, turning to rephrase it, that we are in some circumstances able to transcend our "first person" viewpoint. Heidegger seems to be saying something like this in Being and Time.


Yes I would agree that is possible, but a majority of views are contradictory even if they are both shadows of a truth. Also you'd have to ask what transcends our first-person viewpoint, things we see as transcending it? It is obvious to me that the laptop I'm typing on exists independently of me, but it is also obvious that my experience of that laptop is dependent on me... there is dissonance here because both obvious conclusions can lead to less obvious polar views. I could say there is an external independent reality or I could say there are only minds and reality is dependent on them.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/29/2023 at 07:58:30