• Arne
    688
    extracted from the rest of metaphysicsENOAH

    I do not know what that means. Ontology is not "extracted" from the rest of metaphysics. Metaphysics is an emphasis upon what is, epistemology is an emphasis upon how do what know what is, while ontology is an emphasis upon the nature of what is. There is no necessary hierarchical relationships upon the separate areas of emphasis.

    Indeed, the areas of emphasis are to a large degree artificial and serve the purpose of making philosophy in general more accessible by dividing it up in a somewhat artificial manner. When I say my primary area of interest is ontology, I am not saying to the exclusion of all other areas.

    You want to talk metaphysics, then we can talk metaphysics and you may run circles around me. If you want to talk epistemology, then we can talk epistemology and you may run circles around me. If you want to talk ontology, then we can talk ontology.

    And if you do not want to talk ontology, then that is fine too. But only a metaphysician would attempt to persuade that metaphysics is some sort of umbrella term that includes ontology and epistemology. It is not.
  • Joshs
    5.1k


    And if you do not want to talk ontology, then that is fine too. But only a metaphysician would attempt to persuade that metaphysics is some sort of umbrella term that includes ontology and epistemology. It is not.Arne

    To add my two-cents worth, Heidegger’s fundamental ontology, what he calls also the ontic-ontological difference, is not at all the same thing as the traditional philosophical meaning of ontology as the meaning of extant beingness. Heidegger considers this classical understanding of being to belong to metaphysics, whereas his fundamental ontology overcomes metaphysics.
  • ENOAH
    55

    Ok, I think I understand, including how what seems like my recklessness is frustrating. I did not intend that. I respect what you're saying, and am trying to understand how it might be impact my own thinking. So, is your point about isolating ontology, to say that Fiction or not, for ontology that's not relevant? And if so, why (sincerely, not argymentively)? And if not, then why--in the context of expressing that (to keep it simple) all our experiences are Fictional if we accept that human Consciousness is limited by its own "structure," made up signifiers--does it matter to "isolate" an ontological approach? Is there something about ontology that necessarily transcends human Consciousness (given we might acknowledge that the same can't necessarily be said of metaphysics or epistemology)? Is there a reason one cannot say of ontology that any truth regarding same cannot be accessed by Language but only by being (that) Being?
  • ENOAH
    55
    sorry last thing, didn't even H in B and T, purport to embark upon ontology but really end up providing a philosophical reflection upon the Human as Subject, Mind as opposed to its Natural Organic Reality?
  • Arne
    688
    Heidegger considers this classical understanding of being to belong to metaphysics, whereas his fundamental ontology overcomes metaphysics.Joshs

    Excellent point.
  • ENOAH
    55

    I don't see how Heidegger’s ontology, if we are talking about Being and Time, overcomes metaphysics. To me, it expands it, and, with the help of hindsight, not even in any radical way, but rather, in a way which might be expected following those before him like Kant, Hegel, Husserl etc. If you are willing, explain to me how his ontology transcends the conventional approaches preceding him, which ultimately amounts to constructing new expressions out of the bricolage in our minds. Like what I'm doing too. I'm not demeaning the activity, it's what we do. It's just that I'm getting the impression H's ontology enjoys some kind of privileged status when it comes to Truth, and I'd like to know: is that because H, though similarly just constructing so called truths out of Mind, has somehow transcended Mind, all of It, and a accessed Real Truth about Being? And that matters to me because I'm of the opinion that no matter how artful, the only access to (the) Truth (about) Being, is in Being.
  • Joshs
    5.1k


    Heidegger’s thinking may be a bit weirder than you’re prepared to accept. I noticed you make traditional philosophical distinctions like that between mind and world, fiction and reality, subjective and objective. Heidegger eliminates those distinctions. Dasein is neither mind nor world , inside nor outside, subject nor object. Heidegger’s Being is not an entity, an object, a subject. Being is a happening, a transit, an in-between.
  • ENOAH
    55
    ah! OK. Time to re-read Heidegger. I'll look closely for that. Thanks!
  • Janus
    15.3k
    To add my two-cents worth, Heidegger’s fundamental ontology, what he calls also the ontic-ontological difference, is not at all the same thing as the traditional philosophical meaning of ontology as the meaning of extant beingness.Joshs

    The distinction you mention is either a phenomenological or a metaphysical distinction, and as I said Heidegger, I believe, equates phenomenology with his conception of metaphysics, which is not the same as the classical conception of course.
  • Arne
    688
    but what is your best description of Metaphysics?Rob J Kennedy

    Contemporary metaphysics represents the systematizing of philosophy.
  • Joshs
    5.1k
    Contemporary metaphysics represents the systematizing of philosophy.Arne

    That makes it sound like a deliberate effort is required. Is metaphysics for skilled specialists, something you should never try at home, or is it a way in which we are thrown into the world?
  • Arne
    688


    It has more to do with the dynamics of conformity. Metaphysics is what One does.
  • Joshs
    5.1k


    It has more to do with the dynamics of conformity. Metaphysics is what One does.Arne

    ok, but I recommend adult supervision. You could poke an eye out.
  • Arne
    688
    Is metaphysics for skilled specialistsJoshs

    The systematization (schematization?) is nothing new. Plato schematized as have many philosophers throughout history. Some wish to explain everything while others wish everything to be explained.

    And in contemporary philosophy, those wishes are evidenced in responses (including some of mine) to questions such as "What's your description of metaphysics?"

    I suspect one could Google and find a chart with "Metaphysics" at the top.
  • Arne
    688
    didn't even H in B and T, purport to embark upon ontology but really end up providing a philosophical reflection upon the Human as Subject, Mind as opposed to its Natural Organic Reality?ENOAH

    What Heidegger does in Being and Time is consistent with Heidegger's intentions as set forth in the Introduction to Being and Time. Please see Being and Time at page 64.
  • Arne
    688
    Is there something about ontology that necessarily transcends human ConsciousnessENOAH

    Not all ontologies are the same. Heidegger would say yes. Please see Being and Time.
  • Arne
    688
    Is there something about ontology that necessarily transcends human ConsciousnessENOAH

    Perhaps. Dasein is constitutively pre-ontological. Please see Being and Time.

    Also, consciousness is derivative of being-in-the-world. Ibid.
  • Arne
    688
    Is there a reason one cannot say of ontology that any truth regarding same cannot be accessed by Language but only by being (that) Being?ENOAH

    The nature of being (ontology) is inaccessible in the absence of being.

    A deeper understanding of the nature of being (ontology) can be facilitated with the use of language.

    I suspect the above is "truth regarding" all intellectual pursuits.
  • ENOAH
    55
    While my specific inquiries have not been addressed in any way which closes the book for me. I recognize that it is me, who is most likely failing in my exposition, and appreciate your efforts and patience Regardless, I will re-visit Heidegger, now in the context of information you have provided to see if anything changes for me, hoping that it does. Thank you
  • ENOAH
    55
    Sorry, my last post was intended for you.
  • Arne
    688
    Thank youENOAH

    You are welcome. And I appreciate all your comments and efforts. As resistant as I sometimes seem to being pushed, pushing me is the most effective way to force me to examine and/or reexamine my positions and to clarify them. And that is priceless.

    So thank you.
  • Arne
    688
    my last post was intended for you.ENOAH

    and as somewhat of an aside, I greatly appreciate your initial comment to the original question. I would like to discuss it with you. So at some point in the not to distant future, I will contact you via your inbox.
  • ENOAH
    55
    looking forward to it
  • ENOAH
    55



    Having looked more closely at Heidegger, I get why you say,

    Heidegger considers this classical understanding of being to belong to metaphysics, whereas his fundamental ontology overcomes metaphysics.Joshs

    But I think he shirks metaphysics, rather than overcoming it. He pretends to be doing a Classical, pre-Socratic even, ontology, an inquiry into the Being of beings, but ends up constructing his beautiful piece of architecture on par with Kant and Hegel, about Dasein, the Being of the everyday human being. And I admire it and find it useful, even liberating from some of the fixations of previous phenomenology, but I still have my concern that far from overcoming, he fell short.

    Had he said, this is an "Ontology" of Human Mind, how (this mechanism of) being is constructed by it; how it constructs Time, and Handiness (and, he could have added, Logic and Reason); for their function how it is passed on in the form of History, input into every offspring, so that we are born already thrown into its world; how each particular, each individual instance of it partakes simply by being there; had he said that (which I submit, though over simplified here, except for the opening, he did, and a lot more like that) but just added, but don't ever think I am doing an Ontology of Real Being. That's not possible; any effort I make is already coming from that magical make-believe place of being thrown into a world of ready- made(s). That best I could do is give you back that world, rearranged and reconstructed so that you understand that; that afterall is all we really care about; we don't care about Truth (still my hypothetical H speaking); had that qualifier, which I believe he was conscious of, been included... Why does it matter besides the joy of the puzzle? Because if we think H or anyone has done anything other than reconstruct out of what is already there, we are at risk in believing Mind can, contra Socrates, actually know, and the many manifest problems with that....

    Any so called Ontology of "Real" Being (which term and concept is itself, admittedly already a ready-made, so don't even start, Socrates), any inquiry and answer to an inquiry into Truth, can only be in be-ing.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.