Shameful plug1/16/2024 ![]() We might distinguish between "traditional epistemology" (vulgar is a bit crude) and "fundamental epistemology" (a bit over-the-top still, but whatever)). So, I think it might make sense to shoehorn the traditional epistemological practice, seeing it as an epistemic practice rather than a genuinely epistemological one (it's a butchering of traditional terms, but Heidegger did it with ontology. In epistemology, I think the ussage fits pretty well (though I probably wasn't very clear on this). If I remember correctly, he said they were just "cataloging the furniture of the universe" and called it "vulgar ontology." The problem was that it never accounts for being in the first place, just organizes and classifies what it takes to be already there. Yeah, so, as I understand Heidegger, he thought of the "ontology" that came before him, Aristotle and Descartes explicitly, as never going beyond the ontic level. This is why i I think that you might be trying to shoehorn ethics into a framework that it won't fit into.Īlso, I'm drunk, so I hope this makes sense. In other words, the ontological difference for Heidegger, is not a simple difference in kind of the species/genera view that Aristotle had. Heidegger thought this was basically wrong, and that Aristotle's view was still basically an ontic examination of being. So in Aristotle's view, this is the highest thing. In Aristotilean metaphysics, we gopnup the chain of being from species to genera and so forth, until we arrive at Substance. The reason for this is that, as far as I can tell so far, Heidegger wants to undermine (or destructure, or deconstruct, or however you translate it) the whole notion of categories that we get from Aristotle. If so, this should be problematic if what you are trying to do is use Heidegger's terminology as a metaphor for ethics or epistemology. ![]() I'm not aware of a difference in kind between epistemic and epistemological, but am I right in thinking its a matter of talking about ( to put it in Aristotilean terms) members of a species and the genus to which they belong? The distinction that Heidegger is making, between beings and Being, is, I think of a different order than the distinction you want to make between ethics and (meta?)ethics. If there are any heidegger scholars here I would welcome correction. I'm not sure how well I can articulate this, but I'd like to give it a try. eat cake, watch cool videos, hang out, and be fucking little spoon! I'm not ashamed, it's awesome! Fuck you, man, you don't know me! oh, look at me, I'm a man, so manly, I'm always big spoon, like a man! Yeah, ok, well, I'm going to be over here getting to, you know, like. And, you know what, I feel sorry for you you're like. There's nothing wrong with a man wanting to be little spoon. R/badphilosophy is not an accurate representation of philosophy as a profession nor reddit's philosophical community. Otherwise, more bad philosophy to be shared. It's rare but they may actually learn something. If you're going to crosspost Reddit-born bad philosophy here, try to educate the bad philosopher beforehand. Have an alcoholic beverage within reach while viewing this subreddit. TERFs, Bri Bri, racists, and other undesirables will not be unbanned. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, so mote it be. Justice is guaranteed, but your conception of the just is most likely wrong. ![]() Send an appeal, don't be an asshole, and come prepared with red pandas. Participants and non-participants on this forum can and will be banned by the moderation staff for any reason or non-reason whatsoever. ![]() No one has time to watch a 20 minute video to guess at what you meant, and it helps to avoid fucking up one's recommended queue on youtube. If you post a link to a video, you must do so as a text post and explain in the post what the bad philosophy content of the video is. Keep it to philosophical content or things about the discipline. Many things are bad but not bad philosophy. Questions, answers given to questions, and/or discussion about philosophy in general are likely to be banned and removed. Earnest questions about philosophy are best directed to /r/askphilosophy. Speaking reason with the inmates, though futile, may be entertaining but don't tap on the glass. So are non-trolley memes.Īll posts about something the length of one tweet or smaller must go in the Abysmal Aphorisms small-posts thread, or be met with an instant ban.ĭon't vote in linked threads - Remember, you're only a visitor of Bedlam. See here for an archive of good philosophy of race. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |