" Jordan wrote: "Is he essentially stating that we need to be able to distinguish the difference between essence and existence; between possibility and...more
Jordan wrote: "Is he essentially stating that we need to be able to distinguish the difference between essence and existence; between possibility and actuality of being? That the two are not parallel but are mutu..."
Hey, Jordan:
It's been some time since I posted the review, and, reviewing it, I think I might have been a little unfair. That said, I do not think all the jargon and verbosity was not needed to write what Heidegger did.
If memory serves, in the book/lecture/series of lectures (?), Heidegger was trying to give a history of philosophers' conception of being, and in that passage in particular (above), Heidegger was talking about the 'classical modern' conception of being, roughly, at least, from Descartes to Kant. A translation of the passage, sentence by sentence, might be something as follows:In this next portion, we need to outline the classical modern distinction between essence and existence. An earlier lecture/portion of the lecture discussed this kind of distinction in Kant, where he distinguished between actuality and possibility. Actuality and possibility are separate categories for Kant but somehow coincide. In terms of Kant's categories, actual things belong to a category of other actual things and possible things belong to the category of other possible things. The kind of distinction Heidegger wants to make here does not need these kinds of preambles throughout the book and could be explained more easily.
You may or may not be interested in the line of inquiry Heidegger is feeling here, that is, the distinction between a thing's essence, those features some thing or other has, without which it would not be that thing, and its existence, those peculiar qualities a thing has, without which it would not be real/exist. The distinction was inherited by classical modern philosophy from medieval philosophy. For contemporary philosophy and science, I do not think it's a very useful one. The conception of things according to their essence and existence begs the question as to why make reference to the distinction at all. In what way does it provide any explanatory theory? In what way is it helpful? The distinction between possibility and actuality, of course, has bearing on modal logic and I am sure theoretical physics, but I am too dumb to comprehend the ways in which the distinction is useful for those areas and so would gladly defer to them and assume that it is. It's also, incidentally, intuitively useful.(less)
"
|
|
|
I know it seems strange to give this book a 5-star review, but O.J. Simpson's book is compelling and bizarre. Simpson (with the assistance of a ghost writer) begins the book recounting how he met Nicole Brown when she was an 18-year-old waitress at a...more
I know it seems strange to give this book a 5-star review, but O.J. Simpson's book is compelling and bizarre. Simpson (with the assistance of a ghost writer) begins the book recounting how he met Nicole Brown when she was an 18-year-old waitress at a restaurant and while he was separated from his wife in his first marriage. It continues from there to the conclusion with Simpson's high-speed chase where he was arrested before he was to stand trial for the murder of his wife and Ron Goldman.
A couple of odd parts about the book: the book begins with an author's note that reads 'If I did it, this is what happened.' All subsequent events described after the author's note are supposed to be true except for the one chapter about the night of the murder. In that chapter, he attempts to separate the putative fiction from the reality with this brief sentence: "Now picture this--and keep in mind, this is hypothetical." From that point on, he tells how he sneaked into Nicole's house (they were living in different houses at the time) and killed Nicole and Ron Goldman with the help of an accomplice O.J. calls 'Charlie.'
Simpson is a very persuasive storyteller. When he writes about the problems he had had with Nicole, with her temper and her excessive drug use, I found myself sympathizing with him and believing his story. He downplayed the allegations that he abused Nicole or that he was jealous and that he wanted her back. He winds up looking like a basically honest guy who was trying to be a good father to his children and handle an ex-wife who was out of control. I will reserve sharing with you my judgment about Simpson's possible guilt or innocence, or the likelihood of Simpson's account with his life with Nicole out of respect for any readers out there who would be interested in reading this book.
I confess that I read this book out of curiosity, and I had assumed that the book was going to be awful, either in terms of writing or in terms of detail about the murders. The book was neither, surprisingly. But this was one of the strangest books I have ever read.(less)
|
|
|
|
Bluebeard is not a perfect novel but very beautiful. This short book contains short chunks that move from one topic to the next but which are all connected because they relay past and present events of the life of Abstract Expressionist painter Rabo...more
Bluebeard is not a perfect novel but very beautiful. This short book contains short chunks that move from one topic to the next but which are all connected because they relay past and present events of the life of Abstract Expressionist painter Rabo Karabekian. The novel is supposed to be his autobiography. The presence of two women in his life dominate a large proportion of the story, and Vonnegut portrays them colorfully. The novel is also a bit of a mystery since he has a secret he has kept locked away in a potato barn for several years. Readers, I think, will enjoy spending time with Rabo.(less)
|
|
|
|
Paul Nation's and Jonathan Newton's book Teaching ESL/EFL Listening and Speaking is an excellent resource. The book is especially helpful in how a teacher could organize her course objectives. It is also helpful with providing various activities for...more
Paul Nation's and Jonathan Newton's book Teaching ESL/EFL Listening and Speaking is an excellent resource. The book is especially helpful in how a teacher could organize her course objectives. It is also helpful with providing various activities for ESL/EFL learners. Nation and Newton also provide suggestions for certain levels of vocabulary that should be emphasized at different levels of language proficiency. Thumbs up.(less)
|
|
|
|
Batman and Philosophy was fun, but I would recommend any reader to skip the fourth part, which has to do with issues of identity. Some of my favorite syntheses that emerged in the readings were among Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and Martin Heidegger vis...more
Batman and Philosophy was fun, but I would recommend any reader to skip the fourth part, which has to do with issues of identity. Some of my favorite syntheses that emerged in the readings were among Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and Martin Heidegger vis-a-vis Batman. Here it is in summary form. In some respects, Batman fits the Aristotelian model in that he increases his virtues through their exercise and rears Robin (no innuendo intended) by example. Aristotle advised that if one wanted to be virtuous, one had to practice being virtuous. That is, one learns to be virtuous by doing, just as a cobbler learns to be a better shoemaker by making shoes. Of course, being virtuous or doing the right thing involves, for Batman, adhering to certain basic moral principles. Batman, then, in this respect is a deontologist a la Kant. That is, he thinks the most important issue regarding being moral involves choosing to act in accordance with a moral law one would give herself: 'one ought not kill,' for example, 'one ought to save innocent people if one can,' and so on. Batman also represents some aspects of a Heideggerian philosophy. Batman lives an authentic existence because he does not conform to what most normal people do but instead lives a life according to the projects he thinks are important, projects that namely involve Batman saving other innocent lives. These are just some of the pieces one can glean from the book. Again, the book is fun.(less)
|
|
|
This is a pop philosophy book about TV misanthrope Gregory House and his unorthodox behavior. The various articles in the book attempt to frame House in terms of some philosophical model or as representing some philosophical system. Here are some of...more
This is a pop philosophy book about TV misanthrope Gregory House and his unorthodox behavior. The various articles in the book attempt to frame House in terms of some philosophical model or as representing some philosophical system. Here are some of the jewels, which might strike you as uncontroversial, but anyway: (1) For House, something of a meaningful life involves living consistently with respect to what is true and seeking the truth; (2) Even though, in general, human beings "blame people more [for what was beyond their control] when their actions cause serious harm than when the same actions, through sheer luck, cause no harm at all" (p. 40), House thinks that it is better "to act when not to act is almost certainly fatal" (p. 51), and this help explains his penchant for risk-taking with regard his patients; (3) What House is best at is not necessarily deducing evidence (because if he did, he would never be wrong), but at the process of abduction, that is, viewing some strange phenomenon and inferring its reason or cause, and he believes that for every phenomenon there is an explanation (although people don't always know what it is); and (4) House, like Socrates of Plato's dialogues, believes that asking questions and testing out hypothesis and explanations is important even in the face of its possibility to create conflict with those with whom one is questioning or working out these explanations.
There are some other gems, too, like a discussion of love vis-a-vis House and relevant to every person on planet Earth. The article called "Love: the only risk House can't take" talks about how, if you really think about it, love is a second-order desire. It's not so much that one desires the other person, but rather that one desires possibilities with being with that other person. And this is the reason why it is so easy to project one's own view of what that other person is because (at least romantic) love is a step removed from the person him- or herself. Cameron projects onto House the image of a vulnerable, crippled man who needs help (at least that's what House thinks). And related to the projection onto a person or at the very least expectations that come with loving the other person, there are always disparities between the projection and expectations and the actual person. That being the case, it becomes a source of conflict, and so relationships are necessarily vulnerable. House wants no part of a relationship that is by its very nature vulnerable.
Who would have thought all this fun would have been in a pop philosophy book?(less)
|
|
12/22 questions correct
(54.55%)
in
3 mins
35 secs
|
|
|
|
I haven't seen any writing pointing this out, but Hernando de Soto shares his name with a Spanish conquistador. I had first heard the name in Spanish class, and a visit to Wikipedia told me about some of his exploits. This is unfortunate for the auth...more
I haven't seen any writing pointing this out, but Hernando de Soto shares his name with a Spanish conquistador. I had first heard the name in Spanish class, and a visit to Wikipedia told me about some of his exploits. This is unfortunate for the author of this book Hernando de Soto. De Soto in The Mystery of Capital examines several Third World countries that have people who own a lot of property but whose countries do not show that these people have rights to their property. This is because this property is owned extralegally. De Soto makes the case that these people do not generally want to hold property illegally, but rather that what property rights systems that do exist in the countries are so byzantine that it is highly improbable that a normal person, whether a businessman, craftsman, trader, etc., can obtain property rights. De Soto's argument for solution is that the countries should recognize the extralegal owners' rights and make all future property rights law easier to understand and the property rights actually obtainable. If this happens, he thinks that the legalization of the property they hold will make the countries' richer. I don't understand how that works, and I admit it might be because of ignorance. The questions I have are these: If people are recognized as holding property legally and possessing property rights, how does that generate capital? Is it just because the property will be taxed and money will be lent to purchase it? Perhaps a person decently versed in economics or possessing more common sense than I possess can answer.(less)
|
|
|
|
I thought this book was going to be an extended thought-experiment about what would happen to the rest of Earth if human beings ceased to exist. Instead, the book is a mash-up of essays by author Alan Weisman about different, very particular aspects...more
I thought this book was going to be an extended thought-experiment about what would happen to the rest of Earth if human beings ceased to exist. Instead, the book is a mash-up of essays by author Alan Weisman about different, very particular aspects of post-industrial life that might survive human existence. Weisman interviews people and has them speculate about what would happen to, for example, nuclear reactors, the oceans, plant life, etc. A pretty dull book, if you ask me. I wish it told the story of the world-without-us thought-experiment in sweeping narrative format. That says more about my expectations, though, than this book.(less)
|
|
|
|
This is the college textbook I am using for my Language and Culture class this summer. I do not have much to say about it, frankly. Several of the findings one will read here, albeit factual, are familiarly treaded territory. That does not make the b...more
This is the college textbook I am using for my Language and Culture class this summer. I do not have much to say about it, frankly. Several of the findings one will read here, albeit factual, are familiarly treaded territory. That does not make the book bad, exactly, though. The last chapter is about language and institutions and concerns the way in which language is used as a source of status and authority in everyday institutions, including courts of law, the media, and other publications. Ironically, this textbook itself sometimes uses charged, evaluative language or frames issues/topics in such a way that it leaves very little doubt for the reader as to what the author's beliefs about the subjects are. The book, then, is proof positive that linguistic expressions devoid of implicit evaluation or preference for schema biases are difficult to formulate, perhaps in some cases impossible.(less)
|
Sign in with Facebook
to:
to:
to:
to:
