|
suck my woke dick posted:Objectively, What you're searching for is what Hegel attempted to address after rejecting Kant's moral imperatives as insufficient, because they do not transcend the individual and so can never be universal or truthful. Hegel's Sittlichkeit (ethical order) has the root German word Sitte which builds into ethics the normative standards of society. Heidegger is also against such moral imperatives because we would be needlessly enframed in an individual's metaphysical subjectivism. Morbus posted:He somehow gets credit for resurrecting ontological concepts that are old as gently caress despite the fact that, when the fart cloud of pointlessly obtuse terminology settles, it turns out he didn't actually develop these ideas any further at all. He did do a lot to popularize the idea that "not making any goddamn sense" is, in fact, a profound epistemological position and when called out on being a sputtering font of verbal diarrhea he had the balls to basically declare "well, if I used specific words in a certain order that actually meant something, my ideas wouldn't make any sense!" Heidegger's innovations are heavily contingent on the concepts developed by Kant (The a priori space-time structure of cognition), Hegel (Shaping philosophy & history through each other), & Kierkegaard (Subjective temporality).
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2019 22:06
|
|
, and Truth with a capital T does not exist for morals. But so what? Some key parts of natural morality are likely to be shared across the human (and potentially other intelligent species) experience due to certain adaptations common to any self-replicating life form. It makes little sense to deviate from them without overwhelming need. Other parts may not be so widely distributed. Sections of society (e.g. plutocrats or some sociopaths) may voluntarily use assumptions taking them to entirely incompatible moral rules from the bulk of humanity (e.g. FYGM is cool and good), and this leads to a conflict that will eventually be resolved one way or the other. Why should it matter to the masses that plutocrats may or may not be more objectively right in some metaphysical sense? The masses are still deprived of food and other resources, and will inevitably feel compelled to rectify this situation.
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 13:32 |
|
|
Squalid posted:you lost me at the third clause. Not all philosophers are good writers, neither are all philosophical projects the same. Heidegger felt that both "Plain language" and philosophical language at the time did not have the vocabulary needed to express what he wanted. He had to develop many of the concepts that he would later use, or it would be even more unweildly in both volume and coherency. Kant and Hegel faced similar charges of obscurantism as they all have a sort of meta-language to learn in order to parse a random passage from their work. KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 09:28 on Feb 27, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2019 09:20
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:For example, say we read someone say "The police will only ever protect the wealthy, the justice system is only used to protect those in power". You can read that about 50 times a day on here. The second way can lead to something more: that inordinate wealth and power are what should be addressed directly. Obviously this is far easier said than done, in that this will require a massive ontological change as beings, but Heidegger is more suited to asking the right questions rather than generating solutions.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
The actual contention here is that philosophy doesn't deserve the respect afforded to the maths/sciences for any impenetrability and therefore must at minimum be entertaining or reduced to the level of self-help books.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2019 18:15
|
|