[lit-ideas] Re: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjcwLAMmMzU

  • From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 07:30:59 +0100

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" (PIĀ§ 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
>
>
>

Other related posts: