> The extraordinary moment in 20th Century Philosophy when Ludwig Wittgenstein’s analysis of how people are able to follow rules lines up with Martin Heidegger’s exposition of skillfully dealing with the world we are embedded in. > … Thereby dismantling Epistemological Scepticism and Anti-realism in a single and simple insight....
What is being? and why does that matter? This is the talk I gave at my local U3A Philosophy Club on 6th November 2018. Powerpoint slides for this talk are here on OneDrive: https://tinyurl.com/wotisbeing https://thort.space/journey/110898789587140112950_4770908987140461382_4761598985556014761/2 This is a talk about my understanding of Division 1 of Heidegger’s Being and Time,...
The extraordinary moment in 20th Century Philosophy when Ludwig Wittgenstein’s analysis of how people are able to follow rules lines up with Martin Heidegger’s exposition of skillfully dealing with the world we are embedded in.
… Thereby dismantling Epistemological Scepticism and Anti-realism in a single and simple insight.
There’s a lot going on in Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations and in Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time.
But a single and simple related move made by both Ludwig Wittgenstein and Martin Heidegger is enough to dismantle both … Epistemological Skepticism and Anti-realism…
These two master-works converge around the analysis of following a rule (L.W.) and skillfully dealing with the world we are embedded in (M.H.)
I agree about being unprepared. I didn't expect so much attention - if any. I write endless articles on Medium in a variety of styles, including poetry, and answer questions on Quora, and mostly just get ignored. At one time a few years ago, when blogging was popular, I had about eight blogs which I posted on regularly, and got a total of about one one-sentence response comment per month - and quite often that was from someone wanting to sell me viagra. (I don't know who they'd been talking to.)
Although I have been editors choice on Poetbay 3 times - which I am proud of. Being down-voted about Heidegger is a new high for me.
I'll go read Luke's sequence. :-)
Hey, I'm right up to minus 19 - that's put a smile on my face. Thank you for bringing some balance to the force.
I do sort of understand the antagonism - people in the community want to protect the quality of the content which the community is generating. They value the comradeship of shared values, etiquette, assumptions, agreed-upon starting points for conversations, and so on. Noobs just don't get it. Noobs are a threat to that. In the first instance, given the reputation, I was surprised that I was allowed to post on here at all without having some established credentials. I mean, I do have a few credentials, but nobody... (read more)
I think so. I'm not sure. I would need to think about it some more.
I can certainly see some value in some of the thinking around e-prime. And I made a point out of the linguistics at the beginning of the talk, but mostly I did that just as a way of starting my talk with something familiar.
In distinguishing being the way he does, I don't think Heidegger is really so interested in the meaning variations of the linguistic form. He is more interested in what our behaviour and experience silently indicate ie. what is in the background that makes different forms of inteligibility viable.
One way of thinking about that is... (read more)
As my first post on LessWrong I was not aware of the particular piece of etiquette w.r.t. not finishing posts with a biographical sentence. I have gotten used to doing this because on Medium.com, where I have been writing articles for about a year now, it is a standard practice to put a biographical note at the end of your articles. I only started doing it cos I saw other people doing it, and I thought it looked smart.
Also because the "Save Draft" button on this post did not work (I kept trying to get it to work - lost the post three times and had to start again), I... (read more)
This is the talk I gave at my local U3A Philosophy Club on 6th November 2018.
Powerpoint slides for this talk are here on OneDrive:
https://tinyurl.com/wotisbeing
This is a talk about my understanding of Division 1 of Heidegger’s Being and Time, which I have mostly gleaned from reading and listening to commentaries rather than by studying the original text.
The commentaries and sources that I have found most helpful are:
Thanks for feedback.