that is fine. I give up On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Leibnitz does not say that this world is the only possible world but > that it is "the best of all possible worlds." Hence the claim is not > refuted by showing that other worlds are possible. On the other hand, he > also does not say that it is the best of all imaginable worlds, hence he is > not refuted by showing that better worlds can be imagined. > > O.K. > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> It hasn't been claimed, on my part, that all metaphysical statements are >> unfalsifiable. There is a logical and practical difference between 'some' >> and 'all.' Among those some that are unfalsifiable we find "Das Nicht >> nichtet," which on a charitable reading turns out to be tautological and >> hence irrefutable, and "There are natural laws" which is a positive >> existential statement and hence unfalsifiable. >> >> Leibnitz's claim that the existing world is the best of all possible >> worlds *may* be falsifiable or refutable but presumably this cannot be done >> by exposing the evil in the world, as Voltaire does in Candide, because >> these are empirical and not metaphysical observations. It is not clear >> though what is meant by "the best" and whether this is not too subjective >> an evaluation to be refuted. >> >> O.K. >> >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Two claims were made to the effect that metaphysical statements are >>> “useless”, “senseless”, or according to some “non falsifiable”, the >>> silliest ones are those who claim that there is some “violation” of maxims, >>> grammars and assorted junk. >>> >>> So, consider an easy case, which arguably is beyond doubt metaphysical. >>> >>> Leibniz claimed, actually, twice, that the actual world is the best of >>> any particular other one and of the totality of possible worlds not >>> severally taken. >>> >>> (you have traces in monadology and in the version of theocidees) >>> >>> Now can this be falsified? I fail to see why not. In fact there are two >>> wasy. >>> >>> 1. Is historical, namely take a time slice of actuality, fix one >>> parameter of what you take improvement and you get an order of goodness >>> out of it, hence the actual world or wold slice is not the best >>> >>> 2. Deny that goodness is anywhere, hence *all* worlds are equally >>> bad or good since such moral predicates do not apply to any one of the >>> possible world >>> >>> 3. The cheap shot approach (Candide): there is Heidegger, >>> earthquakes, hitler, lady gaga hence there can be a world devoid of >>> Heidegger, lady gaga since it is not inconsistent to eliminate >>> buttmann/Heidegger, his wife, his children, lady gaga, his students, >>> imbecils assorted und so weiter. Hence the actual is not the best, we can >>> have betterments. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> We have both truth conditions and possible refutations. >>> >>> Now immediately will be told that the “best of all” is not a >>> metaphysical statement, there you’ll see immediately the deep profound >>> mental bankruptcy of these so called theories with “language maxims” >>> “criteria of rationality” and similar anglo teutonic junk. >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: >>> lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Omar Kusturica >>> *Sent:* 24 February 2015 10:08 >>> *To:* lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> *Subject:* [lit-ideas] Re: Reading Heidegger >>> >>> >>> >>> See you soon. >>> >>> >>> >>> Omar >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 6:33 PM, <cblists@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> >>> One of the best things that I have read about Heidegger's 'obscurity' is >>> the following: >>> >>> "Then again, there is the matter of Heidegger's famous 'obscurity', >>> which would seem to require that special comment be made upon him. A great >>> deal of this 'obscurity' is a matter of translation, and disappears when >>> Heidegger is read in German. To be sure, his German is at times a very >>> highly individualized vehicle of expression: Heidegger does coin his own >>> terms when he has to, and usually these are coinings that stick very close >>> to the etymological roots of German. Heidegger thinks very much within the >>> matrix of the German language, and his expressions hugs the particularity >>> of this language to its bosom. All of this makes for difficulty in >>> translation . . . . [I]f we compare Heidegger with two classical German >>> philosophers, like Kant or Hegel, his sentences are remarkably compact and >>> incisive, his expression notably terse. Very often, in reading Hegel, we >>> get the feeling . . . that the philosopher is deliberately willing to be >>> obscure. One never gets this impression from Heidegger: he is struggling >>> to communicate, and his command of his own means of communication is >>> powerful and impressive. The difficulty comes, rather, from the obscurity >>> of the matter with which Heidegger is grappling. >>> >>> "That there are obscure matters at all in our experience is a contention >>> that rubs against the prejudice of some positivistic philosophers that >>> whatever cannot be said clearly and distinctly cannot be said at all and >>> the effort to say it can only result in 'meaningless' verbalism. Every >>> philosopher, in this view, ought to be able to express himself with the >>> simple-minded clarity of, say, Bertrand Russell. and if the philosopher >>> does not do this, it is a clear sign of intellectual incompetence. All >>> this, of course, is oversimplified psychologizing. A philosopher may be >>> quite capable of mastering one or the other of the clear and distinct >>> dialects of philosophy and bouncing the ball of dialectic deftly back and >>> forth across the net; but he may be drawn by other subject matters into >>> following a quite different path in philosophy. From the point of view of >>> a philosopher like Heidegger there are parts of our experience that >>> ordinary language finds itself hard put to express, if it can express these >>> matters at all; indeed, this ordinary language seems to have been formed >>> out a kind of conspiracy to cover over or forget these parts of experience >>> altogether." >>> >>> - William Barrett in his introduction to the 'Phenomenology and >>> Existentialism' section of William Barrett and Henry D. Aiken, eds., >>> _Philosophy in the Twentieth Century: An Anthology_, (New York: Random >>> House, 1962); Vol. 3, pp. 152-3. >>> >>> I can attest to Barrett's claims about reading Heidegger 'in the >>> original', and indeed would go farther than he does. I do not claim that >>> one cannot come to some understanding of Heidegger's thought, or critique >>> his views in interesting and insightful ways, without reading him in >>> German. But I will say categorically and unequivocally: if you have not >>> read Heidegger in German, you have not read Heidegger. >>> >>> - Chris Bruce >>> Kiel, Germany >>> -- >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, >>> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html >>> >>> >>> >> >> > -- palma, etheKwini, KZN palma cell phone is 0762362391 *only when in Europe*: inst. J. Nicod 29 rue d'Ulm f-75005 paris france