'here below we know in part'. The ancient Greeks conceived of the present tense as being first and foremost the 'present continuous', so I think Heidegger is really making hard work of it.
This is very interesting, lucid, and thought-provoking: thank you. But could you please add some bibliographical details to this and your other videos, so that we can find the texts which you are discussing?
Everytime you talk about language I'm fascinated, I think I've never learned anything more important than what I've learned here in your YT channel, as much as I enjoyed learning about chemistry and math, everything seems to hang on the limits of language (not saying that's the case, just saying that's how it feels to me right now) thank you Mr Bonevac, few people I've know have brought these notions to my locality.
I think death is a key to understanding Heidegger's notion of truth. As late as 1956 (lectures on The Principle of Reason) he calls death "the most radical possibility of human exitence […] which engages mortals in the most elevated play, a play in which they are at stake." (Paraphrasing from memory) You cannot understand care (sorge), without the possibility of being and non-being residing in the horizon as it were. Also death being the one possibility that cannot be actualized, therefore bound remain a possibility as such, and thus THE possibility par exellence, in light of which existentially signifcant actualities reveal themselves against this abysmal background. So it remains central to Heidegger's notion of the possible on my reading.
I really enjoyed your videos on Borges, kripke and Wittgenstein. I wonder, have you read David foster Wallace? He seems to be pretty much the literary offspring of Borges, his fiction has the same "geometrical" (rather hyper-geometrical since he's very fixed on recursions) quality to it. To my understanding he attempted to instantiate Borges' Herbert Quain's work in a intertextual way.
@@PhiloofAlexandria many people go straight ahead and read infinite jest, but my money is on his two short story collections: Brief interviews with hideous men & Oblivion, If you give it a chance I'd be very curious to know what you can extrapolate out of it. A story of his is called: philosophy and the mirror of nature. I have yet to read Richard Rorty's, so I don't know what that one is about.
Dr Bovenac, I would suggest that you read the simple Oscar Wild good old tales and leave Heidegger aside, because I see what influence he had on your nerves. Sorry for this, but if I continue listening to you in combination with your efforts to explain Heideggers riddles, I'll need sedatives..
@@PhiloofAlexandria Αt least you didn't loose your humor like he did. A pessimist can never become a great philosopher! By the way I continue reading Oscar Wild and I still cry at his tale about the prince's statue and the sparrow. Remember it? Even if I speak all peoples' languages but I don't love people, I am nothing. Wasn't Wild and the prince a great philosopher? Now you know what it takes to build you a statue.
How would Heidegger have responded to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem? Is pi true? Is pi the most truthful thing? Or is pi the biggest lie ever? The true false dichotomy of the correspondence theory of Plato reminds me of Boolean Algebra with all its logical circuits. It all eventually leads to coherentism and the soul of coherentism: concensus. Truth in this formulation isn't "free", it doesn't disclose anything; in fact it seems to trap the truth. Heidegger seems right when he asserts a relationship between truth and freedom, but I think Jesus was more concise: the truth shall "make" you free. Truth isn't a matter of fact, truth is the "whole" story. It shouldn't be partial or contingent or useful. Like beauty there is something that isn't just a comparison with ugliness. There is something more. Not just freedom but escape. When Aquinas theorized about the thought conforming to the thing, did he suspect he was advocating for conformity? There is value to conformity, except when it leads to dead ends. Who then will form a new concensus, economists? Who will get us out of the trap of our own making? The correctness of math shouldn't be compared to truth.
@@18890426 According to Darwin truth is genetic. According to mathematicians numbers are as metaphysical as God, though they like to assert that numbers are discovered not invented (the same can be said about god). Logic can lead to the illogical with the aid of tautologies. Boolean Algebra cannot prevent the assertion of contradictory things. In fact it aids in it. The truth can be hidden if we obscure the contradiction by using a tautology or, better yet, an axiom: an assumption disguised as a fact. A good example of this is the plausibility of time travel in literature and movies. The plot makes perfect sense so long as the sequence of events is filmed in linear fashion. The assumption, however, requires suspension of disbelief, thus making anything plausible. Numbers, like points and lines, do not exist. They do not exist like the sun or trees exist. They exist purely as notions. As distillations or amalgamations of the senses processing nature: as inferences. Not as things in themselves, but as relationships between things as sensed by our consciousness. Boolean Algebra cannot tell you that numbers do not exist. Why? Because they're presupposed, they are asserted not assumed. Similarly the properties of numbers: addition, multiplication, etc., are all after the fact. Boolean Algebra cannot prove itself, how can it prove the truth?
This is a very clear and energetic presentation, but ultimately flatfooted and completely misses the point about the "correspondence theory" in Aristotle and Aquinas (it has nothing to do with "propositions" matching "facts", but the mind intuiting existence and being itself identical to it in form, as wax to a seal), as well as what Freedom and world disclosure mean for Heidegger (Freedom is not merely choosing with a background of possibilities, but the inherent falsity in being, the nothing that nihilates; and disclosure is not simply dynamics, or change, but the metaphysical way of being in the world in a certain manner that has an interpretive framework bequeathed to us by a tradition that already outlines being in some way or another).
What you say is trivially true. A man is not a woman. But that says nothing on whether a man might become a woman. Or if society might be mistaken about who is a man or who is a woman.
@@APaleDot What I said is essentially, objectively, and universally true. Gender is determined by biology and can never be changed. We can only pretend a person's gender has changed, the same way we pretend a 5 year old beat his dad at arm wrestling.
@@JohnGeometresMaximos Saying a man is not a woman is not saying much. Saying that gender is biologically determined is just flat false. Gender is the social category that corresponds to biological sex. This in no way implies that gender is determined by sex, and indeed social categories often cut contrary to biological ones. Take the category of "parent". There is a clear biological basis for that category. And yet, the social category of parent includes people who have no biological connection with their children. You would not walk up to an adopted child and tell them that their mother is not their _real_ mother. Obviously, that would be extremely disrespectful, but also it's just wrong. It's false. The adoptive mother _is_ really the child's mother because she is fulfilling the social role of their mother. In the same way that an adoptive mother is a mother, not biologically but socially, a trans woman is a woman.
This one is mind blowing.
'here below we know in part'. The ancient Greeks conceived of the present tense as being first and foremost the 'present continuous', so I think Heidegger is really making hard work of it.
This is wonderful! I was completely ignorant of Heidegger until now, and I can see clearly now that that was a terrible omission in my self-education!
This series is fantastic, thanks Dr. Bonevac.
Thank you !!!
Very Interesting.
And dynamic.
This is very interesting, lucid, and thought-provoking: thank you. But could you please add some bibliographical details to this and your other videos, so that we can find the texts which you are discussing?
Everytime you talk about language I'm fascinated, I think I've never learned anything more important than what I've learned here in your YT channel, as much as I enjoyed learning about chemistry and math, everything seems to hang on the limits of language (not saying that's the case, just saying that's how it feels to me right now) thank you Mr Bonevac, few people I've know have brought these notions to my locality.
Wow, thank you!
Your series on Heidegger is fantastic. Lucid, clear explanations! Why did I spend thousands of hours slogging through those texts?
Based. POG.
I think death is a key to understanding Heidegger's notion of truth. As late as 1956 (lectures on The Principle of Reason) he calls death "the most radical possibility of human exitence […] which engages mortals in the most elevated play, a play in which they are at stake." (Paraphrasing from memory) You cannot understand care (sorge), without the possibility of being and non-being residing in the horizon as it were. Also death being the one possibility that cannot be actualized, therefore bound remain a possibility as such, and thus THE possibility par exellence, in light of which existentially signifcant actualities reveal themselves against this abysmal background. So it remains central to Heidegger's notion of the possible on my reading.
I really enjoyed your videos on Borges, kripke and Wittgenstein. I wonder, have you read David foster Wallace? He seems to be pretty much the literary offspring of Borges, his fiction has the same "geometrical" (rather hyper-geometrical since he's very fixed on recursions) quality to it. To my understanding he attempted to instantiate Borges' Herbert Quain's work in a intertextual way.
I haven't, but many people have told me I need to.
@@PhiloofAlexandria many people go straight ahead and read infinite jest, but my money is on his two short story collections: Brief interviews with hideous men & Oblivion, If you give it a chance I'd be very curious to know what you can extrapolate out of it. A story of his is called: philosophy and the mirror of nature. I have yet to read Richard Rorty's, so I don't know what that one is about.
Is part II to Essence of Truth available?
Usually, Heidegger solves his problems by making up new words like "Jemeinigkeit" that are almost impossible to translate.
True!
@@PhiloofAlexandria I shall solve the problem behind dynamic correspondence for him by creating the word "Möglichkeitsgeronnenheit".
This guy is not incompetent as hell. Though he tries in a way one can almost appreciate.
Dr Bovenac, I would suggest that you read the simple Oscar Wild good old tales and leave Heidegger aside, because I see what influence he had on your nerves. Sorry for this, but if I continue listening to you in combination with your efforts to explain Heideggers riddles, I'll need sedatives..
@@PhiloofAlexandria
Αt least you didn't loose your humor like he did. A pessimist can never become a great philosopher! By the way I continue reading Oscar Wild and I still cry at his tale about the prince's statue and the sparrow. Remember it? Even if I speak all peoples' languages but I don't love people, I am nothing. Wasn't Wild and the prince a great philosopher? Now you know what it takes to build you a statue.
Sounds like Martin rediscovered what even Newtonian physicists have known for centuries: a complete theory includes kinematics and dynamics.
How would Heidegger have responded to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem? Is pi true? Is pi the most truthful thing? Or is pi the biggest lie ever?
The true false dichotomy of the correspondence theory of Plato reminds me of Boolean Algebra with all its logical circuits. It all eventually leads to coherentism and the soul of coherentism: concensus. Truth in this formulation isn't "free", it doesn't disclose anything; in fact it seems to trap the truth. Heidegger seems right when he asserts a relationship between truth and freedom, but I think Jesus was more concise: the truth shall "make" you free.
Truth isn't a matter of fact, truth is the "whole" story. It shouldn't be partial or contingent or useful. Like beauty there is something that isn't just a comparison with ugliness. There is something more. Not just freedom but escape.
When Aquinas theorized about the thought conforming to the thing, did he suspect he was advocating for conformity?
There is value to conformity, except when it leads to dead ends. Who then will form a new concensus, economists? Who will get us out of the trap of our own making?
The correctness of math shouldn't be compared to truth.
It would be interesting and Illuminating to dig deeper into the relationship between the concept of the truth and the Boolean algebra.
@@18890426 According to Darwin truth is genetic. According to mathematicians numbers are as metaphysical as God, though they like to assert that numbers are discovered not invented (the same can be said about god).
Logic can lead to the illogical with the aid of tautologies. Boolean Algebra cannot prevent the assertion of contradictory things. In fact it aids in it. The truth can be hidden if we obscure the contradiction by using a tautology or, better yet, an axiom: an assumption disguised as a fact. A good example of this is the plausibility of time travel in literature and movies. The plot makes perfect sense so long as the sequence of events is filmed in linear fashion. The assumption, however, requires suspension of disbelief, thus making anything plausible.
Numbers, like points and lines, do not exist. They do not exist like the sun or trees exist. They exist purely as notions. As distillations or amalgamations of the senses processing nature: as inferences. Not as things in themselves, but as relationships between things as sensed by our consciousness.
Boolean Algebra cannot tell you that numbers do not exist. Why? Because they're presupposed, they are asserted not assumed. Similarly the properties of numbers: addition, multiplication, etc., are all after the fact. Boolean Algebra cannot prove itself, how can it prove the truth?
Isn’t this Gnosticism? a hidden truth.
Also isn’t this a link from Hegel, even Kant. The thesis, antithesis-synthesis.
This is a very clear and energetic presentation, but ultimately flatfooted and completely misses the point about the "correspondence theory" in Aristotle and Aquinas (it has nothing to do with "propositions" matching "facts", but the mind intuiting existence and being itself identical to it in form, as wax to a seal), as well as what Freedom and world disclosure mean for Heidegger (Freedom is not merely choosing with a background of possibilities, but the inherent falsity in being, the nothing that nihilates; and disclosure is not simply dynamics, or change, but the metaphysical way of being in the world in a certain manner that has an interpretive framework bequeathed to us by a tradition that already outlines being in some way or another).
So, a man cannot be a woman, and a woman cannot be a man.
Very TRUE!!!
What are you getting at?
But what is it; to be?
What you say is trivially true. A man is not a woman.
But that says nothing on whether a man might become a woman. Or if society might be mistaken about who is a man or who is a woman.
@@APaleDot What I said is essentially, objectively, and universally true.
Gender is determined by biology and can never be changed. We can only pretend a person's gender has changed, the same way we pretend a 5 year old beat his dad at arm wrestling.
@@JohnGeometresMaximos
Saying a man is not a woman is not saying much. Saying that gender is biologically determined is just flat false.
Gender is the social category that corresponds to biological sex. This in no way implies that gender is determined by sex, and indeed social categories often cut contrary to biological ones. Take the category of "parent". There is a clear biological basis for that category. And yet, the social category of parent includes people who have no biological connection with their children.
You would not walk up to an adopted child and tell them that their mother is not their _real_ mother. Obviously, that would be extremely disrespectful, but also it's just wrong. It's false. The adoptive mother _is_ really the child's mother because she is fulfilling the social role of their mother.
In the same way that an adoptive mother is a mother, not biologically but socially, a trans woman is a woman.