Overcoming

@Fairbanks,

Fairbanks;27891 wrote:

Hegel put paradox to good use. It was the end of philosophy. As far as certainty goes, we need only be reasonably convincing on some appropriate level.

Fairbanks,
Could you please expound upon your statement of "Hegel put the paradox to good use. It was the end of philosophy?" Why is this exactly?
~P

@Phaedo,

Phaedo wrote:

Fairbanks,
Could you please expound upon your statement of "Hegel put the paradox to good use. It was the end of philosophy?" Why is this exactly?
~P

Got the thesis, which suggests the antithesis, and then by rising above the paradox through synthesis you are done. No more problems. Until Derrida that is, but some doubt exists that Derrida did in fact do philosophy. .

@Fairbanks,

Fairbanks;34326 wrote:

Got the thesis, which suggests the antithesis, and then by rising above the paradox through synthesis you are done. No more problems. Until Derrida that is, but some doubt exists that Derrida did in fact do philosophy. .

Sorry for my lack of knowledge on the matter, but I really don't know what the paradox is, nor his thesis/antithesis(in regards to the paradox?) I've only read Hegel's Encyclopedia of Philosophy and have yet to touch anything of Nietzsche (but I want too!). Next semester I'm taking a class on Existentialism but currently don't know much about it. Could you explain a bit more or at least point me in the right direction? I'm a bit in a the dark with this subject, hence my question why is philosophy ended (dead?)?

@Phaedo,

Phaedo wrote:

Sorry for my lack of knowledge on the matter, but I really don't know what the paradox is, nor his thesis/antithesis(in regards to the paradox?) I've only read Hegel's Encyclopedia of Philosophy and have yet to touch anything of Nietzsche (but I want too!). Next semester I'm taking a class on Existentialism but currently don't know much about it. Could you explain a bit more or at least point me in the right direction? I'm a bit in a the dark with this subject, hence my question why is philosophy ended (dead?)?

You have read Hegel's Encyclopedia of Philosophy and right there is the problem. Speaking of pointing in a direction, there being no 'right' direction, there is no canon. That would be history of philosophy, not philosophy. Read everything and read everything cited in your reading. Every quality implies its opposite.

@Victor Eremita,

Perhaps, even under the Hegelian rubric, it is not that philosophy ends (although Heidegger says it does after Nietzsche) but that it always begins anew, always refreshes its thinking. It does so while at the same time, encompassing (in a rather Hegelian sense) its own past (sometimes in a strikingly negative pose, at others in a cherishing attitiude). In a sense, the history of philosophy can be seen as itself an overcoming.

@jgweed,

jgweed wrote:

. . . philosophy ends (although Heidegger says it does after Nietzsche) . . .

That would make whatever H was doing something not philosophy, perhaps history. He has a point. Philosophy has become literary criticism, a small part of literary criticism.

@Fairbanks,

Heidegger meant that philosophy of a certain kind (metaphysics as opposed to ontology, the forgetting of Being, etc.) ends with Nietzsche, that after Nietzsche philosophy as commonly practiced since Plato is no longer possible. The implication being that the philosophy which Heidegger sought to outline was how it ought to be done. I'll leave it to you to decide how reasonable you take that to be.

@matty phil,

matty wrote:

Heidegger meant that philosophy of a certain kind (metaphysics as opposed to ontology, the forgetting of Being, etc.) ends with Nietzsche, that after Nietzsche philosophy as commonly practiced since Plato is no longer possible. The implication being that the philosophy which Heidegger sought to outline was how it ought to be done. I'll leave it to you to decide how reasonable you take that to be.

The quote button makes it possible to relate posts as an intertextual narrative thing, whether the thing is a thing in itself or a sign of something deeper. The Philosophy Dept needs to get it in gear soon because the Literary Criticism Dept is fatally fragmented and needs guidance.

@Victor Eremita,

The notion of "oercomming" is nothing more than the ego taking credit for what is not it's creation. Vanity.

(Philosophy is 'critical thought', period! As long as there are those capable of, and practicing, 'critical thought, there will be philosophers and philosophy!)

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

The notion of "oercomming" is nothing more than the ego taking credit for what is not it's creation. Vanity.

(Philosophy is 'critical thought', period! As long as there are those capable of, and practicing, 'critical thought, there will be philosophers and philosophy!)

Typically obstacles are not of one's own creation; therefore there is an ability to overcome the obstacle. Many people fear or even dread their eventual death. Sure, the fact that everything living has a life span is not their own creation. But that is a fact that everyone who considers their finite existence must come to terms with.

Eventually if you deny the ability to use terms properly you would destroy the very essence of language. Also, what good would critical thought be without being able to communicate due to most concepts about thought being little more than vanity as you say.

@Victor Eremita,

Nietzsche, in one of the greatest books ever written, describes overcoming three stages of the spirit, from camel to lion to child. overcoming what we are is an essential part of his philosophy, it is what ties all his ideas together. the fact that we are not as wise as the children (in the sense that they are happier) and that we ought to transcend ourselves and break free from all the limits and lies we live in is inspiring, for more information see my blog post "the child" at : www.amrhima.blogspot.com

amrhima

@amrhima,

amrhima;

Yes, this is Nietzche's three transformation of the spirit, but somwhere in there, I think the last stage as the child, Nietzsche says, one becomes, the wheel which rolls from its centre, the camel was loaded down before crossing the desert with all the should's that society heaps upon us, the burdon makes the camel stronger and is transformed into a lion. I think then as with an apprentice whom learns all the rules of his craft, he then has the knowledge and wisdom to cast aside what should be's are not appropriate to him, and thus rolls like a wheel from his own centre. One has become, ones own authority. Your above post did not seem to want to evoke a response, I mean, there really was not an issue to address, was that intended?

"One day his chains fell away of themselves, and the world eon of Zeus dissolved." Prometheus Unbound--Shelly I think.

Is the system going to flatten you out and deny you your humanity, or are you going to be able to make use of the system to the attainment of human purposes?
Joseph Campbell

@boagie,

I have never used forums before Very Happy

....arent we just supposed to say whether or not we agree?

@amrhima,

amrhima wrote:

I have never used forums before ....arent we just supposed to say whether or not we agree?

amrhima,

Oh that explains much, I to had to get use to the idea of presenting something in a fashion that would evoke a resoponse. When I first began to post, I would post and wonder why I got such little or no response. When you are about to post something read it over and see if it doesn't have a hook to it. A simple statement does not necessarily have that. Well, welcome to the forums anrhima!! What you posted is interesting, it just does not require anything of the reader, accept perhaps inviting them to read your blog. No offense intended, I do hope none is taken.

@amrhima,

amrhima wrote:

I have never used forums before ....arent we just supposed to say whether or not we agree?

Certainly not, that is a hopeless state of democracy...

"balls - fine wines, and Withnail where are you???"

:letme-at-em::letme-at-em::letme-at-em::letme-at-em::letme-at-em::letme-at-em:

@Victor Eremita,

There is a new science evolving from the science of mind that is called the science of spirit.

Basically suggesting that the human is trapped in the preconditioned state of their instinctive brain fucntions, and that evolving involves learning to look at the world through the pineal gland instead of the eyes.

By accomplishing this one becomes enlightened to the true world around them without the deceiving fog of the brains interpretations. this would be overcoming the falsehoods of a preconditioned world for the truth of the real world.

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder, Smile

Seems mysterious, how could one experience witout the senses without said sensory info processed by the understanding, your are talking I think of ultimate reality, that, I believe is impossiable, for any experience of would still be an interpretation and thus limited.

@Victor Eremita,

What is being experienced is the turning off of the connection between what the brain is telling us and what our actual logic tells us.

For example the brain will tell you what you want to hear sometimes based upon precondtioning, hense the basis of traditional family religion passed on without question. It is basically living by what the senses tell you without question. Another example that comes to mind is the sense of smell and how it can be fooled by two completly different things that smell the same, and the person thinking it is one thing by the smell of it when in reality it is something else.

There is a new studyy taking place and I am going to lookm it up right now, that has interfaced the human brain with an external and completly separate paraphernalia, and the person connected can actually manipulate the object using nothing more than his thoughts controlliung the computer interface. I have seen it with my own eyes. OOPS there is the science of spirit in perfect example, i think i saw it with my own eyes, it was a television science documentary. lol

@Victor Eremita,

Victor Eremita wrote:

But do you really need to overcome your faults, mistakes, the social world in order to do so?

yes

this is essential

@Victor Eremita,

I see G. Bush with lots of faults, yet he got the most poweful job in the world.

To me Kirkegaard was nothing but a factory of mental porn, pleasing the masses with puzzeling creative nonsens.

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know