|
EmmaCharlotteStubbs (August 2, 2008 at 1:07 pm)
it's Wlodomir Ledochowski!..there's a 16second clip of him here on youtube: tap in "black pope rare footage" and see for yourself
zarakhast (July 31, 2008 at 7:36 pm)
.. to cohere. I don't understand how anyone can't see that everything which can be thought about is bound to be a kind of 'being'. Therefore, 'Being' (which is common to all) MUST be the first and most important matter. The discipline which treats of Being is metaphysics. Hence all of the individual sciences and disciplines of philosophy are subordinate to philosophy. I'll read that article, but I'm not expecting 'metaphilosophy' any more sense to me !
zarakhast (July 31, 2008 at 7:29 pm)
'Metaphilosophy' : it's like talk of 'metalanguage' and 'metalogic'. How can a metalanguage be anything other than just another 'language' ? Ditto logic. Ditto philosophy. I think philosophy is the ultimate subject. It's the relation of all the other subjects (including logic) to philosophy which is important. What's alarming nowadays is that all the individual disciplines seem to be assuming autonomy and forgetting that they originally sprang from the one subject in which they ought ..(cont'd)
dogx15 (July 31, 2008 at 7:03 pm)
Check out wikipedia's article concerning "metaphilosophy". Those philosophers who do metaphilosophy full time, in my mind, are failed philosophers. Having done nothing in philosophy they then turn to metaphilosophy. Stephen Hawking once said that failed physisist turn to the philosopy of physics and science - like Sir Karl Popper. Same thing in philosophy - like Richard Rorty.
zarakhast (July 31, 2008 at 5:55 pm)
basically the same as Nietzsche.I must admit while I admire the unquestionable genius of the likes of Russell and Wittgenstein that they seem to me to be blind to the fact that language and logic must be made possible by something higher still. This 'higher still' is 'Being', which makes all things possible. But what 'Being' means is a mystery.
zarakhast (July 31, 2008 at 5:40 pm)
Similary, to transcend itself and yet remain itself is only a contradictory idea if 'selfhood' is regarded as essentially fixed. Nietzsche, who regarded the essence of being as 'will-to-power', expressed in this phrase the unity of being (fixity) and becoming (change). The idea is that transcendence is the very essence of will to power and therefore (since everything according to N. is will-to-power) also of philosophy. Heidegger also said, 'Dasein is metaphysics' : by this he means (cont'd)
zarakhast (July 31, 2008 at 5:34 pm)
I also think that philosophy can (and must) ask what it should be about and indeed what it (philosophy) is, but I don't see why a 'metaphilosophy' should be necessary to address this, or that you wouldn't then require a 'meta-metaphilosophy' .. and so on. Perhaps philosophy needs to always be transcending ITSELF in order to remain itself ? This may sound like a contradiction from a logical point of view, but not if transcendence is the essence of philosophy. (cont'd)
dogx15 (July 31, 2008 at 5:25 pm)
As to point one, I thank you for that info regarding Heidegger's veiw of Kiekegaard and Hegel. I will look into it. In the strict sense of the word "philosophy" I, for the most part, agree with H. that there could be no xstian philosophy."Metaphilosophy" is basically the "philosophy of philosophy". Its what Richard Rorty seems to being trying to do, telling philosophers what they ought to be doing. Even Wittgenstein at one point was trying to speculate what philosophy should be about.
zarakhast (July 31, 2008 at 4:20 pm)
And as regards 'logic' and 'common sense' : who would deny that they're indispensable for living in the here and now ? But the truth remains that in logic, just as with a computer program, you can only get out what you already put in (i.e. the laws of logic do not allow for freedom of inquiry, but already predetermine all possible answers from the outset). More than this though : the laws of logic all use the word 'to be' - but without inquiring into what that means.
zarakhast (July 31, 2008 at 4:15 pm)
.. inquiry. It goes beyond EVERYTHING. There's no need for a 'metaphilosophy' ! : if one ever arose during an attempt to philosophize one ought rather to conclude that one hadn't actually been philosophizing in the first place ! It's impossible to go beyond what already goes beyond everything (in thought). You'll have to explain to me what 'metaphilosophy' is supposed to mean and why 'philosophy' is not the ultimate inquiry for you ! |
