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

  • From: palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 08:34:59 +0200

comprendo... yes, if you recognize the character (arguably the greateast of
the stage actors of the 20th century in italy) you'd know..

On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  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
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
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: