School of Economic Science
Points of Note in Heidegger's Interpretation of Theta 1-3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    School of Economic Science - Study Forums Forum Index -> Plato Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
krasa Kirillov
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

“We too could interpret both cases, as Aristotle observed, as things going towards their place.”


Never. Because we would say at once gravity, and think, the leaf falls like that because it is light, and there is air resistance. Or something along those lines, which already prefigure matter as mass, a uniform quality which determines movement. That’s not how Aristotle uses his concept of matter at all.


When we say matter, we are thinking of the region where Aristotle spoke of entelechy. Think of the term “potential energy” as a part of a theory of gravity in the way it deals with mass and energy. In fact, to my surprise, the wiki page even mentions this connection, and this that follows that mention:


“since the work of potential forces acting on a body that moves from a start to an end position is determined only by these two positions, and does not depend on the trajectory of the body, there is a function known as potential or potential energy that can be evaluated at the two positions to determine this work.”


“We too could interpret both cases, as Aristotle observed, as things going towards their place.”


That would mean, putting it into modern coin, that we would interpret each thing as having its own peculiar law of gravity. That would not occur to anyone, and it seems utterly absurd.


“Becoming questionable means here: asking about ---- in the sense of why?”


Most statements are not independent. One can’t read even a paragraph as one can that sentence. And even there it would help to know more. Since “why” includes directions in itself, which are not single and ahistorical. Why suggests, or can suggest, an answer about objective cause given to a subject, thinking in terms of cause which has become covariant function, for instance, only in our own day. Even “why” does not speak so simply, and independently of history.




“This is to their place in cosmos and I believe what you mean by the nature of motion in unsouled beings.”


I had in mind the distinction between motion (falling stone) and change, crumbling or eroding stone. Change is the universal, motion is particular change.


The souled or animated things, in the case of animals, can learn. Their motion, therefore, can be varied. Aristotle gives the example of a stone saying it can’t be taught not to fall, as often as one tries to gently or forcibly teach it the art of going up by throwing it.


“But if we experience force as the cause of something, then force itself is related to being moved and movement and what is not the same as these.”


This “force” is a life, that’s the old meaning of ‘living god’. Heidegger calls that Geschick of History, Fate. Unsouled (not teachable), but living, with a living principle of motion. The English physicist, Stephen Hawking, asks: What breathes the fire into the equations?


The thing is that our own physics describe, but don’t venture to explain.

This 'force' is behind the possibility of the being we call motion (and rest).


““Force has the character of being a cause: an originary thing that allows a springing forth, that out of which something is, namely a particular being.”


Where is this in the text?


Force seems to stand, here, behind ergon. And, as one may suppose, we have the vague region of Being (the unconditioned, which one must only presuppose but can not think [as yet]. The word Being is a kind of rubric, that does not as yet offer what it says to thinking, perhaps can not) and beings in their peculiarity, as a subject matter.
Back to top
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1103
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2016 7:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I took this part of p. 67 as Heidegger saying something like: Look, everywhere as we see about us, things are in movement, but cause is not invoked because in our minds no question arises “in the sense of why? from where?” He then gives examples, leaves, smoke, which without ‘logos’ go on their merry way: up, down round about. He then cites a possible interpretation of ‘things going towards their place’. But once we begin to think in terms of force a different explanation is required, a more precise logos. So he is putting other explanations aside and we are asked to look at things in a different way. This brings us bang to the statement which is the subject of the thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krasa Kirillov
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2016 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

“We, too, could interpret both cases, as Aristotle observed, as things going towards their place.”


This statement followed by the parenthetic “A possible explanation of nature which is until today not in the least refuted, in fact not even grasped” it seems to me, must be taken as part of the hermeneutic procedure of Heidegger which states: interpretation is never a strict matter of reading “out” of the text, but is always decisively determined by what is read “in” to the text. Leo Strauss says, in thoughtful connection to this, all interpretation is sui generis.


It does seem to me that what I wrote above is “correct”, but thereby it is not also true.


Here, it seems: “We, too, could interpret both cases, as Aristotle observed, as things going towards their place.” must imply the poetic as the clearest form of thought. The poetic is thought at its clearest or most clear.


Does Aristotle actually speak of things going to their places in the tones of poetry, as the most clear thought, or as part of the theory of cause? I would say, the latter. Perhaps someone can adduce for us a statement, which purports to say, phenomenologically, out of Aristotle: “We interpret things to be going to their places in ordinary life”.


Does Aristotle start with that, and then build the theory of movement, and being moved? This is a sight for our dubative circumspection. We lack the knowledge of Aristotle to say.


The: “A possible explanation of nature which is until today not in the least refuted, in fact not even grasped”


Suggests that Aristotle become the place where one is meant to think what couldn’t be thought prior to the modern dispute about causality. Kant, for instance, did not remove the concept, in the wake of the critique of Hume, but let it stand as concept. Ruling that: if it did not say what it is meant to then we wouldn’t use it. He lets it say what it wants to as a concept.


Aristotle seems to be very much invested in this concept. That is why the Megarian' thesis must be understood as a foil. Only they reached this conclusion, that of a kind of Positivism, in classical times.


The: “...in fact not even grasped.” Invites us to meditate on what is left unthought in the situations under our observation (the falling leaf, etc).


Heidegger is correct in sofar as there is no reading out of the text. Aristotle’s world does not exist. We don’t know what the thought behind the words was. The project of classicists, that of bringing out notional construals is bunk, incorrect and false, though it continues the tradition and is beautiful.


What is proposed is that we take up force under the sense of the poetic. It is because it is. By contrast one may think of Rausch, as the “will to will” in Nietzsche, and the Spirit of History as in Benjamin. With the sense that, poetry, unlike these accounts, makes no account. Further, more rigorous and explicit, are the scientific accounts of causality, of force as a field of force under the notion of function, as balanced equation. Other concepts could be named. Crucial is, how does force as the poetic stand beside Geschick, as the Fate of History. These are the same, with the tricky point that what “same” says is not adequately thought.


Obviously, force as the poetic brings us into the context, and includes us in the Classical Greek world, and one might wonder: and not the archaic Greek world (as of Hericlitus)?
Back to top
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1103
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Place?

I don’t see how we can tell, for certain. The notion of cosmos is strongly redolent of ‘place’ and , as such, does take us an inch or two nearer an understanding of the subject text.

When Socrates was initially enamoured with Anaxagoras’ statement that Nous it was that “arranges and causes all things” we get an idea of how he would have liked him to have proceeded:

“If this is so, then nous, when it orders, orders all things and puts each one of them where it was best for it to be.”

This cosmic order accounts for how the elements act with each other, as they strive, through necessity, towards their ‘best’ place. That is not necessarily where each element finds itself and hence one ‘cause’ of motion. However the disappointed Socrates wanted to take this much further, it seems to me. Perhaps he wanted to extend the concept of cosmos to all situations where there is perceived or unperceived order. Take a simple example of a kitchen. There is a place for each plate, pot, pan, and piece of cutlery and it is this sense of place for every object that is an important cause of movements in the kitchen. Objects continually move away and towards their place. Without 'place' in this sense there would soon be chaos. But whereas in the cosmos ‘outside’ these movements follow their natural course in the kitchen nothing would happen unless there was a source (arche) and that source would NOT be the movement or change but would be ‘in another’ and this other would not be simply a nature in the cosmic form.

Such natures acting on their own simply bring chaos to the kitchen, a cup FALLS from the shelf and the handle that breaks will not mend itself, nor would the fire flying upwards from the fat pan put itself out. The nous of the kitchen, the 'orderer' – diakosmon – must be a nature who is besouled and, to boot, meta logou. He/she is well acquainted with the natures of the elements and employs them to produce. Nature does not produce – poiein – in the Aristotelian sense. The apples fall from the trees and either rot or seed new trees. The farmer, on the other hand, gathers these apples for others to eat. Do you agree?

So, though the producer cannot produce without nature, he is the one meta logou who has, or can, with practice, acquire techne. (Episteme, as science, must be treated differently. The geometrician, for example, is more or less free of the need to ‘produce’.)

Perhaps this is helpful regarding Chapter 2 of Theta.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krasa Kirillov
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 2:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

“Nature does not produce – poiein – in the Aristotelian sense. The apples fall from the trees and either rot or seed new trees. The farmer, on the other hand, gathers these apples for others to eat. Do you agree?”


But there is no teleological cause explicitly in Plato. It seems to play the same role. There is a technical usage of the term poiesis that differs, but it seems that "bringing forth" is the basic meaning in the vernacular. In that sense Aristotle stays closer, and I would caution you, you always speak of Plato's views. Those are views that appear in Plato, along with many others that you don't assign to him, though they could with equal right be named as his.

One might say: In the Timaeus' myth poiesis, the daily word, is explicated.
Someone with a closer knowledge might help us here.

Supposing there are eight senses, as is posited or held in some Eastern doctrines, and each is a form of consciousness as one calls it, a sense. The sixth is abstract thinking, such as a crow can use to solve complicated problems. But the seventh is awareness of the other six. The sixth and the seventh in Aristotle are called passive and active intellect.


Aristotle says: Psuke is there when we sleep, as it is when we are awake. The Crow is like the sleeper, and the human being like the one who is awake. The eighth sense is supposed to be the sense of being as such.


In a certain sense, what is blind, the form that is the essence of matter, for Aristotle, is asleep. Form means the kind of thing, matter means a homogeneous ground that allows that there can be individuals. Form means teleology. An apple tree, that kind of thing, consummates its teleology in the perfectio, the ripe apple. But it is as though the tree were asleep.


“So, though the producer cannot produce without nature, he is the one meta logou who has, or can, with practice, acquire techne.”


That is like saying cosmos is the form of the matter of the universe.


Why are you so anxious to include cosmos, is there a connected passage? Cosmos can mean arrangement. The car, the kind of thing: what is intelligible is the arrangement of: a non-intelligible hypothesis called matter. The arrangement makes the thing what it is. An old saying runs: It has been so arranged that the trees do not grow into the heavens.


Cosmos seems to mean also nature in the sense of the aggregate whole of the so-called natural sciences. Except that, in the natural science there is one law of nature, not a myriad of laws allowing for the nature of each individual.
Back to top
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1103
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wouldn't say I was anxious. I reckon I take cosmos as I think Socrates does, that is, as the best possible ordering. For Socrates, that involves nous: “the man [Anaxagoras] makes no use of nous (intelligence), nor does he cite any causes for the ordering of things, but rather he cites as causes airs and ethers and waters and many other irrelevant things” Phaedo 98b. It is useless to think of the kitchen or car as cosmos unless in analogy to the whole of wholes, as it were - beltiston - the best. This is the spirit Timaeus the Pythagorean evokes when he says the Demiurge, even in the sublunary environment, “shapes things in the best way possible” 46d. I see no way that Aristotle can explain his “towards their place” than in keeping cosmic balance. Man, of course is free to do as he pleases, though again, according to Timaeus, even here there is a price to pay and a book to be balanced, eventually.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krasa Kirillov
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What does Anaxagoras have to do with the student of Plato? That’s not connected. There is no elementalism in Aristotle. For him hyle is a concept, not a substance. Matter doesn’t mean at all what it means in Ionian thought. You have serious problems getting to the substance of these discussions.

Intellect is the Latin for nous, active intellect is nous dunamei. Aristotle speaks of nous whenever he speaks of anything. Your idiot attachment to neo-platonism is sad. Do they pay you or what? It prevents you from understanding anything you write. If you understood any of it you would begin to see through the terminology to the substance of the discussion.

At a more serious level one must pay a great price to the actual words used, since words are never wholly arbitrary. But your skill is now too low for that consideration.
Back to top
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1103
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 7:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My patience is now at an end. Your comments, many abusive, have been a distraction from the beginning of this thread just as Richard Wongkew's, pseudo Avital Ronell's and the famous Redundant Fallibility's were before you (but you are all the same person, obviously.)

Many people read this forum; let's see if we can coax some back as contributors by giving it a gentler atmosphere. But, generally, trolls will not gain a foothold for there is no room for true philosophical discussion in the midst of intellectual or any other kind of intimidation. House rules, eh.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri Leonardas



Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 43
Location: Twickenham near London UK

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are you still about Peter ? - i'd be interested in the topic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1103
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, Yuri, I am still about, moderating this forum, and, although it's taken a long time for you to take the plunge, any sincere contribution is always most welcome. Although I am more an admirer of Plato than either Aristotle or Heidegger I am interested in Metaphysics Theta and its intersects with On The Soul and any possible relevancies it may have with the famous section in Plato's Sophist where he talks of the war between the Gods and the Giants. But if you have another angle I'd be interested to hear it.
Pete
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri Leonardas



Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 43
Location: Twickenham near London UK

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wink

I haven't discussed greek metaphysics for years so if you take up the leading question role i'll respond and maybe we'll just settle nicely.

In recent times i have been involved as in independent researcher in psychophysics visual salience & more including mental health so it may well be that cognitive neuroscience will tend to add much twist to the matters, but i promise we'd still investigate as you intend

Yuri
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1103
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yuri, the subject matter of this thread is rather specialised and to be perfectly honest I've had enough of it. Let's start with something more easy to grasp, at least seemingly so, and see if your specialised knowledge might take it somewhere. Plato considers that the whole of reality can be divided into those things that really are, that are genuine and never change one iota in their being; and those things that have no true being but are constantly becoming - that is, they are temporary by nature and while existing are changing all the time. The first type are called eide or Forms, the second type are called things or entities or simply copies of Forms.
My question to you is whether such a model of reality can fit your own specialised approach in psycho physics?
Pete
P.S. Do the best you can.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri Leonardas



Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 43
Location: Twickenham near London UK

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 3:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not the previous poster

Last edited by Yuri Leonardas on Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Blumsom



Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1103
Location: Wembley, London, UK

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yuri, people read this so let's try to keep it simple, in the way of the Greek tradition.
What do you think of Plato's 'nurse and receptacle of all becoming' (Timaeus 49a) and its implications - especially in regard to what you call 'akashic space'?
Pete
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri Leonardas



Joined: 29 Jan 2012
Posts: 43
Location: Twickenham near London UK

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Did not greek tradition in your second post - undid it Peter.


especially in regard to what you call 'akashic space'?

There has only been a lazy human effort all told since antiquity - it makes no difference what politically incorrect terms i use in that fashion with respect whilst none ever were fantastic.

He is not saying much in that passage and sometimes that just has to be acceptad about Plato. There is enough in order to ask for guidance oneself perhaps.

Thus :

He is feeling his logics looking for a stream of consciousness from God. But God cannot & will not tell him what the ultimate beginning was since God does not now himself. Platowas around this time on the verge of speaking in terms of a new segment of the multiverse. Thus was closer to the condition's which birth that situation but he never received.

In fact what he is saying is a mish mash on one hand, the only way the other - he had taught his mind to attune to universal logic by focusing on the ultimate question - but really that day he was gathering his metaphysic because he wanted to discuss the evolution of spiritual humankind

He hoped that by streaming words linked to the eternal flux and the elements that he might obtain the greatest insight and one has to proceed like so. Again he didn't - so he just discussed the vital elements a bit and gave a demonstration of metaphysical attunement practices - which is fair, the man spent his life in these studies and got the success appropriate.

His nurse & receptacle he is somewhat teaching his audience how to raise their consciousness first, doing so really because he is going through his own personal steps at the time. Then he begins to move onto various words of ascension in universal understanding & personal evolution - via this whole metaphor & conscientious activity.

In the process he invoked the group consciousness


The study of him is as pristine & fascinating as ever was - but also Plato is on a pedestal. Thus one of the obstacles is the elevation of him where he cannot be understood properly unless his vulnerabilities & needs as a adept in hearing the universe speak are realized for what they are.

He was is a human being - incarnate & restricted. and i i'm sorry as i do not flow with ideas that will have made him a king having escaped reincarnation so on as those ideals are ultimately too narrow.

Still - the greatest greek metaphysician

Ultimately it is not Plato who spoke lets not forget this. While with regard to what he did nothing has changed, - not even the requirements of the attunement process he used. Although there is far more scattering of noise & misconception in the human group consciousness now.

On the way to the fabric that contains the voice of the universal - that noise in the human group psych is quite deafening these days. One wonders if he'd have coped in getting past it with it considering what he was used to where these days the sound is other humans.

No better than you or i Peter - there is chaos out there before a metaphysician


He did not plan any of these dialogues - they were streams of consciousness and you will never understand him if you assume that every word is sacred
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    School of Economic Science - Study Forums Forum Index -> Plato Forum All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
This forum is sponsored by the School of Economic Science for use by its members; members of its branches; members
of affiliated schools worldwide and by all other Internet users interested in the study subjects presented.
Powered by phpBB Copyright © FSES, 2007. All Rights Reserved