Penso che avrei lasciato la bionda rompere i coglioni. On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 7:23 AM, palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjcwLAMmMzU > > On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 7:35 AM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> D. P. Henry notes that a mediaeval philosopher said something like, "By >> necessity, nothing must be nothing", which Henry claims is like the >> predecessor of Heidegger's claim. >> >> O.K.: Does "Das Nicht nichtet" simply mean "nothing is nothing" ? >> >> Well, if Henry is right that there is some deductive system in which >> "The >> Nothing noths" becomes a logical truth, we may find this conclusion as >> being >> yielded by premises and axioms in the system which are the logical >> correlates of 'rules of grammar'. >> >> O.K.: On the above reading, the mysterious Henry is surely right. There >> is such a logical system, and it's called tautology. >> >> Well, I do think Heidegger was illustrating 'annihilation' and nihilism, >> and came up with "The Nothing noths" as a good adage to abbreviate that >> way >> of looking at things. >> >> O.K.: Here I would like to see some further clarification. (Or perhaps >> simply clarification) What is "nihilism" and how is it illustrated by the >> above truism ? >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx for >> DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> O. K. writes: >>> >>> "[S]urely it is possible to argue that certain statements that purport >>> to >>> be metaphysical are actually nonsense without making the sweeping claim >>> that they all are. Neither is it necessary to posit the criterion of >>> empirical >>> verifiability for statements to be meaningful as the positivists did. >>> (It >>> might be argued that statement has to be meaningful in at least some >>> sense >>> in order for us to be able to tell whether it expresses an empirically >>> verifiable proposition.) Here are some of the possibilities: A >>> statement in >>> metaphysics [a metaphysical statement, proposition] may have at least >>> three >>> values: 1. It may be nonsense -- i.e. an undefined combination of >>> words. (Of >>> course this might be the value of a statement in any subject, not just >>> philosophy.)" >>> >>> Well, this seems to be Carnap's and Ayer's view re: >>> >>> Heidegger >>> >>> i. The Nothing noths. >>> >>> or >>> >>> ii. The nothing noths. >>> >>> D. P. Henry notes that a mediaeval philosopher said something like, "By >>> necessity, nothing must be nothing", which Henry claims is like the >>> predecessor of Heidegger's claim. >>> >>> Henry does not find the verb 'noth' nonsensical at all. And his use of >>> the >>> "[[ ... ]]" is meant to provide a corresponding verb for any noun ('noth' >>> for 'nothing'). We are familiar with that from Quine, "Pegasus >>> pegasises". >>> >>> "2. It may be a disguised rule of grammar (PP p. 312) -- rather than the >>> statement of fact ("real definition") its author the metaphysician >>> intends it >>> to be." >>> >>> Well, if Henry is right that there is some deductive system in which "The >>> Nothing noths" becomes a logical truth, we may find this conclusion as >>> being >>> yielded by premises and axioms in the system which are the logical >>> correlates of 'rules of grammar'. So "The nothing noths" fits here too. >>> >>> "3a. It may be a suggestive picture -- i.e. one that suggests images to >>> us, >>> but that takes us no further. The proposition 'It's 5 o'clock on the >>> sun' >>> illustrated by "a grandfather clock which points to 5" (PI§ 350), and >>> maybe >>> the "questions without answers", are examples of these. Many such >>> pictures >>> give a false account of the way we use some "sign" or other of our >>> language -- i.e. they are a mistaken understanding of the sign's >>> "grammar" (The >>> distinction between a sign and its use in the language), e.g. the word >>> 'mind' >>> as the name of an invisible object." >>> >>> Well, this applies perfectly to >>> >>> "The Nothing noths". >>> >>> Henry spends some time discussing Lewis Carroll's >>> >>> "Nobody runs faster than me". >>> "That's not true," said the King, "or he had come here earlier". >>> >>> "3b. Or it may be a way of looking at things -- i.e. speculation that is >>> not subject to falsification by anomaly. (Note that some scientific >>> theories >>> are also ways of looking at things -- that is, ways of summarizing >>> [organizing] a selected set of data [Every scientific theory is facts >>> plus >>> imagination] -- that are not falsifiable, e.g. the heliocentric and >>> geocentric >>> models of the solar system.) Of course it may also simply be an idle >>> picture -- >>> although note well that metaphysicians know that their pictures cannot >>> be >>> compared with "perceptible reality" -- i.e. that their metaphysical >>> propositions are not empirical propositions -- and therefore it does >>> not trouble >>> them that their speculative propositions cannot be verified or tested by >>> experience. For, metaphysics says, "Our experience is only experience of >>> appearances, not of reality itself"; cf. Plato's cave image (Republic >>> 515c). >>> Which statement may be an example of senses (2) or (3a) of the word >>> 'metaphysics'." >>> >>> Well, I do think Heidegger was illustrating 'annihilation' and nihilism, >>> and came up with "The Nothing noths" as a good adage to abbreviate that >>> way >>> of looking at things. >>> >>> "Some religious pictures may resemble these "idle pictures", because they >>> also are not hypotheses; however, pictures in religion are used very >>> differently from the way metaphysicians use pictures, e.g. they are not >>> speculative. 3c. Or it may be a picture that it is "logically >>> impossible" for us to >>> be taught how to apply: "How is this picture, e.g. Michelangelo's God >>> creating Adam (LC, p. 63), to be compared with what it is said to be a >>> picture >>> of?" But there is no answer -- i.e. the word 'compare' is not defined >>> in this >>> particular case; indeed, the artist did not intend for a comparison to >>> be >>> made." >>> >>> Well, there are some paradoxes associated with "Nothing" that Henry >>> considers: >>> >>> iii. Nothing taught me to fly. >>> >>> iv. No-thing taught me to fly. >>> >>> was a well-known sophisma. Henry notes that the best answer to the >>> sophism >>> is: "Well, then: show us how you fly". >>> >>> The references to 'signs' is apt in that 'nihil' was much discussed by >>> mediaeval philosophers as a 'sign' of some second imposition, and not a >>> real >>> name. And so on. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Speranza >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> 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 > > >