Heidegger’s concern with “authenticity” might have been more about getting to “Being-to-Being” than about self-empowerment.
Heidegger didn’t like Sartre: the father of Being and Time basically saw Being and Nothingness as trash. When I first learned this, I was surprised: I thought Sartre sounded similar to Heidegger (on first glance). But then it became clear that Heidegger wanted to remove “the subject” from the focus of our consideration regarding “the question of being,” and here Sartre came along and put “the subject” right back into the middle of the conversation. That upset Heidegger, but why? …
Considering A Theory of Two, “Othering” Nothingness, and the Difference Between “In” and “Inside”
Democritus was a Pre-Socratic thinker whose work we only have in the form of fragments, and I sometimes wonder if he was the greatest of all the classical thinkers. Had his works on music, astronomy, and the rest survived, perhaps we would discuss the “Post-Democritus Thinkers” versus “Pre-Socratics,” but’s hard to say. From predicting there would be more planets than earth, that each star was like our sun, and that multiple dimensions could exist…
On Dostoevsky’s Inquisitor, Probability, Progress, Personalization, and the Crooked Timber
Thanks to technology, everything ‘in this world has become everybody’s issue.’¹ People we’ve never met ‘are now involved in our lives, as we in theirs, thanks to the electric media.’² What we are orientated “toward” has dramatically changed in our modern age. Before the 1900s, it wasn’t possible to hear someone’s voice without that person being in the same room: phones didn’t exist. Before the 1950s, it was impossible to watch a live-stream video of something happening in California while in Virginia: the internet, let alone YouTube, was nowhere to…
The Revelation of Contradiction Defining Apart Creation and Causation
Hegel believed that the height of thought was not found in our ability to think about the world, but in our ability to think about what wasn’t in the world. The Enlightenment praised rationality because of its capacity to help us “get at the world,” to understand what was out there and to help us access truth. Thinking then was beneficial because of its ability to “represent” and unveil “what was the case,” and certainly this is extremely important. …
On Unstoppable, Unrestricted, and Self-Consuming “Autonomous Rationality”
The Conflict of Mind by O.G. Rose ended with a paper called “Deconstructing Common Life,” which focused on the work of David Hume and Donald Livingston, work that may prove useful for outlining the problems articulated in “Belonging Again.”
“Philosophy” here will primarily be defined classically, as “the act of reasoning” (basically, “philosophy” and “reasoning” will be treated as similes). Consider the following premises:
1. Philosophy can be about anything.
Can you think of a subject that philosophers can’t philosophize? There’s a “Philosophy of Science,” “Philosophy of Relationships,” “Philosophy of Work” —…
Local Communities Weaken in Proportion to How Much Power the State Accumulates for Good.
Considering our rootless, Cosmopolitism under an ever-growing State, and how toleration empowers the State and the “individual to individualize,” Conyers wrote:
‘But it seems to me a fitting coincidence: for the condition of the modern psyche moves from the depressed realization of the private person in isolation, to the maniacal illusion of god-like omnipotence through the collective powers of the state. The modern self-image seems suspended between the twin obsessions with its lonely despair and its immoderate ambitions.’¹
In line with the thought of Charles Taylor…
Do you want work you can be finished with or work that always gives you something to do?
There are some things we can do forever and other things we can only do up to a point. I can always write or answer emails, but I can only move a piece of furniture upstairs until the furniture is upstairs. Not all tasks are equal in this way, and tasks that can be completed are ones that are easy to stop thinking about once they are finished. But I can always feel like I should be working on “Continual Work”: my…
On David Hume and Binding Ought to Such-ness
We all want to know how to live better lives, but that question is multifaceted. Earning some passive income will help us in one area of life, but we could be making all the passive income in the world and we won’t necessarily have a better relationship with our wife. We could be a good friend in terms of loyalty, but we might not be able to help our friends solve and address their deepest existential problems. Sometimes, it seems like “living the good life” is discussed like a monolith, like it…
It’s rational not to trust authorities we require to be rationally informed.
Consider the following premises:
1. We require institutions, experts, and authorities.
(See this piece by George Orwell. Also, the short story “Ludwig” by O.G. Rose is relevant.)
2. Institutions, experts, and authorities sometimes take advantage of people, make mistakes, and the like.