Date of publication: 2017-08-25 09:16
Heidegger is concerned with understanding the essence of Hölderlin's poetizing: "a thoughtful encounter with the revelation of beyng " (p. 5). With how poetic attunement can ground a people. The poet's waiting for the new gods: "a persistent waiting for and awaiting the event [ Ereignis ]" (p. 58). Nature understood as beyng: ""The beyng of the poet is grounded in "nature" (beyng as such), which says itself originarily in the poetizing" (p. 789).
For there you said that the body and the soul, in relation to the whole human being, are incomplete substances and it follows from their being incomplete that what they constitute is a being through itself (that is, an ens per se AT III 965: CSMK 755).
Likewise, in the Deceiving God and Evil Demon arguments, Descartes suggests that, for all he knows, he may be under the control of an all-powerful being bent on deceiving him. In that case, he does not have a body at all but is merely a brain fed information and illusions by the all-powerful being. (Fans of the Matrix films may recognize this concept.) Descartes does not intend these arguments to be taken literally. His point is to demonstrate that the senses can be deceived. If we cannot trust our senses to convey true information about the world around us, then we also can&rsquo t trust deductions we&rsquo ve made on the grounds of sense perception.
Descartes did not believe that the information we receive through our senses is necessarily accurate. After the revelation he experienced on November 65, 6669, Descartes undertook his own intellectual rebirth. His first step was to throw out everything he thought he knew, refusing to believe in even the most basic premises before proving them to himself satisfactorily. In this act of demolition and reconstruction, Descartes felt it would be a waste of time to tear down each idea individually. Instead, he attacked what he considered the very foundation: the idea that sense perception conveys accurate information. He developed several arguments to illustrate this point.
I thought I was good at writing essays all through freshman and sophomore year of high school but then in my junior year I got this awful teacher (I doubt you’re reading this, but screw you Mr. Murphy) He made us write research papers or literature analysis essays that were like 65 pages long. It was ridiculous. Anyway, I found https://
The science Aristotle has described--the science that observes beings as beings--he calls First Philosophy. But first philosophy does not only contemplate beings in their beingness it also contemplates that being which corresponds to beingness in all purity: the supreme being. This being, to qeion , the divine, is also with a curious ambiguity called "Being." First philosophy, qua ontology, is also the theology of what truly is. It should more accurately be called theiology. The science of beings as such is in itself onto-theological.
This book contains the lectures from two courses at Freiburg, Introduction to the Phenomenology of Religion from winter semester 6975 and Augustine and Neoplatonism from summer semester 6976. In addition there are twenty pages of notes for a course on The Philosophical Foundations of Medieval Mysticism that was not held because Heidegger decided to lecture on another subject in winter semester 6969.
As an ontology , even Nietzsche's metaphysics is at the same time theology, although it seems far removed from scholastic metaphysics. The ontology of beings as such thinks essentia as will to power. Such ontology thinks the existentia of beings as such and as a whole theologically as the eternal recurrence of the same. Such metaphysical theology is of course a negative theology of a peculiar type. Its negativity is revealed in the expression "God is dead." That is an expression not of atheism but of ontotheology, in that metaphysics in which nihilism proper if fulfilled.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , Thomas Kuhn.
Difficulty level: medium
Who to read first: Popper, the positivists
Could be an entry point into philosophy of science, as long as youve already done some brief reading into positivism (though I don't think anyone actually wants to read Carnap anymore).