It's cowardice

[WoodPeckr]

Who cares

Why Heidegger was accused of ontological sophistry, which is a form of closed circular argument apart from reality!

Existentialism and most other philosophical views can be framed in an ontological view. Playing with words is what they are trained in!...

 

[TQM]

wrong, woody

That's not what ontological sophistry is.

It has nothing to do with anything circular. Jeezus, you're dim.

And you're pretty much wrong on existentialism too. It's not a matter of how it's "framed."

 

[WoodPeckr]

That's not what ontological sophistry is.

It has nothing to do with anything circular. Jeezus, you're dim.

And you're pretty much wrong on existentialism too. It's not a matter of how it's "framed."

Spoken like a well trained sophist!
If only you could graduate beyond your sophomoric moment....

 

[TQM]

DQ, no.....

Russell didn't have a hard time with Heidegger. Russell laughed at Heidegger. Russell dismissed Heidegger.

Russell's development of "type theory" in Principia Mathematica (read it?) showed the way to illustrate how Heidegger's metaphsyics (ontology here) was drivel.

I was looking for the name Rudolf Carnap - who in one of his famous articles - in the Logical Syntax of Language for instance - as someone who ridiculed Heidegger for his ontological sophistry. It's actually one of the most humourous pieces ever written, as he attempts to deconstruct Heidegger (the man who tried to be Chief Nazi Philosopher) - sentence by sentence.

Here's a bit of information on Carnap, if you're interested. Many of those listed in this article are my heroes. They weren't just bright men. They were brave men.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Carnap

Whenever I am in Vienna, I make a pilgrimage to the University of Vienna steps where Moritz Schlick was murdered.

If there happens to be anyone interested in some stories about these guys, I happen to know a few. Just ask (if you're sincere.)

DQ - first - It's Descartes', not Descarte's. Second, do you think you know what his "ontological argument for the existence of God is?" Please don't pretend you do, if you don't.

Glad you think ontological a priori proofs are common. Could you please give us other examples? Or even tell us what "a priori" means? Just wondering.

As for Lyotard - please don't tell us about him. Here's a wiki link which is a much more accurate picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyotard

 

[WoodPeckr]

I agree with your historical relationship
of the phenominological/existential tradition.

You can add Walter Benjamin and Hanna Arendt
to that list.

My only knowledge of phenomenology came from a fascinating Professor Marvin Farber many moons ago who claimed to be a student of Edmund Husserl. Took a couple of his ethics courses because he was so interesting.

 

[TQM]

And here's something

on your hero - Heidegger:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidegger#Heidegger_and_Nazism

His treatment of Husserl showed us what a brave man Heidegger was........ fitting that you both should show such interest in him.

More details here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidegger_and_Nazism

 

[TQM]

bingo.

I restrain myself from following any particular school of thought.

You certainly do so restrain yourself, DQ. You certainly do.

P.S. I haven't said anything about agreeing or disagreeing with phenomenology or existentialism. I will say I don't think you know what they are. (It takes more than just throwing words out there to demonstrate you know what these terms mean.)

By the way, here's a bone for you to chew on: logical positivism is a branch of existentialism (as properly defined). You're wrong to have assumed the rightness of one involves the wrongness of the other.