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

  • From: Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 08:29:33 +0000

To omar, when you wish so, no pun intended, I tell you how subjunctives work in 
Italian, your sentence is still cacher though, agreed on the content

From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Omar Kusturica
Sent: 21 February 2015 08:31
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjcwLAMmMzU

Penso che avrei lasciato la bionda rompere i coglioni.

On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 7:23 AM, palma 
<palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjcwLAMmMzU

On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 7:35 AM, Omar Kusturica 
<omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> for DMARC 
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<http://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: