Kasper wrote:Vale Jacobe.
Nonne hoc perclare? Neminem scio ego aliter putantem credentemve. Credo et Heraclitum hoc iam dixisse. Quis vero te dixit tempores vel dies vel cogitationes se replicare?
jamesbath wrote: In a universe where everything is new, where nothing repeats, there is no room for "old" things.
// In universum, in quo omnia nova, ubi nihil repetit, locum non pro vetaribus rebus est. //
jenniferolsen wrote:Since old times, when Aristotle thought time, it was connected with the idea of kinesis or movement. Then there is no movement at all at the universe!?
Aristotle's view of time is […] that it is a measure of motion.
Time is real enough as a phenomenon but it seems to be somehow "subjective" to human beings. If all humans died there would be no time, but motion would continue on.
[T]his common understanding of time he [Heidegger] says is founded in temporality, which is the ability to encounter one's self. […]
The coming upon oneself in the context of some innerworldy activity (rather than in a theoretical sense, "What's wrong with me?", "What do people think of me?") is temporality.
According to Heidegger there is such a thing as primordial or authentic time which is grounded in authentic temporality which is coming across one's most authentic self which occurs in the moment when we experience ourselves both authentically and a a whole, which is the authentic confrontation with death.
The "real" time, primordial time, is the absolutely finite horizon of being-toward-death that is Dasein
Plato implicitly argues against exactly this sort of view (which perhaps boils down to the same argument that Aristophanes made) in literally all of his dialogues, but especially in the Symposium. It would be mistaken to pin Plato down to one specific dialogue since he deliberately makes that impossible,
but his corpus as a whole makes the argument that philosophy is desire, Eros, directed not to the base (the broken hammer), but to the most beautiful being of all, the agathon kat'auto, the whole, the Parmenidean hen which turns out, with great irony, to be.... the being of the philosopher himself. (I can't claim to understand this, if I did I would be divine.)
Keep in mind this is an extraordinarily bold claim for a very sensuous pagan poet like Plato, not an asexual Christianized philosophy professor like his latter day would-be followers.
So in a nutshell Heidegger's whole system stands or falls on whether Plato's Socrates should be regarded as a deficient being or a divine being?
LCN wrote:It's a bold claim indeed. To Nietzsche it was laughable but then again he was a virgin who spent his life in contemplation so...
There is no true cycle of time back to a previous state because every moment is a new and unique moment. Every morning is a new and unique morning. Every thought is a new and unique thought, regardless of whether it is similar to other thoughts by any particular criteria. (Well, I'm tinkering with the idea anyway).
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests