此在是实体,它是这个问题。岩石没有。我不是一个伟大的海德格尔的粉丝,但在他最好的他是聪明的。坏的他是重复的,傲慢的,(奇怪的)一个奉承者无论权力结构,他认为可以促进他的职业生涯。但给信贷的。
当我问我的老师“ownmost”意味着什么,我被告知,“拥挤”。有趣的回答。当然,分析空的。但这只是一个问题,所以武断地致力于分析他们失败的崩溃还原过程的唯一可以实现感应原因。所以他们停止过程之前可以来这糟糕的结束。这就是为什么逻辑学家,或者分析哲学家,从不考虑参数超过几句话,形式主义导致变形,所以完整的语义是追溯所有可以合理的改变。现在,即使是海德格尔没有回归坦率地面对世事,但选择,所有之前和以来最大,教条的超越。好像永恒时间的“本质”。但是直到我们地方语言牢牢地掌握它真正的创造者,弱,情绪的人,我们不会看到太多的意义之间的反差教条。

我的钱肯·威尔伯是20世纪最伟大的哲学家,也许这一个,。我非常喜欢约翰和肯邀请他到计划很快有一天。
2015年6月27日提交的c .马克思

一些AQAL !听起来像“海龟一路下来”给我。“威尔伯”与海德格尔是超越我。
海德格尔问道:“是什么意思?”Analytical thinkers don't dare do so because their whole system collapses from any uncertainty about it. That's why "Anglo-American philosophy" is dogmatics through and through. Not to say that Heidegger was much use in expressing the meaning even of the question, let alone in pursuing it. Any pretensions he once had of grappling with the question without prejudice is long since proved a fraud. But this does not belittle the question itself. Analysis cannot supply itself with its terms, and must take the form of reasoning as its mission. It is evangelical in this sense. Preaching, not thinking. Heidegger, however, was in the long run no better. Being and time is his obeisance to his teacher, and superior, in which he characterizes human existence as epochal. The problem, of course, is that Husserl regarded the epochal structure of time as impersonal, even dogmatically depersonalized. And so Husserl dismissed Heidegger's magnus-opus as "psychologism". But Husserl was already being pressured out by the Nazis, leaving Heiddeger free to seek Nazi approval by proclaiming a mystical connection with ancient wisdom. If wisdom it be.
然而,问题仍然存在。意思是怎么出现的?这意味着人类渴望,或技术问题的条款在任何语言的意义和语言本身。“语言”传统假装让这其激励问题,但如此定罪的理性或逻辑的“需要”这个借口是可笑的。如果自由是一个“需要”!原因理由并不管理包含在其现实不是现实是有点失职未能遵守逻辑或规则,认为,因果关系,或者因为理由缺乏事实。这是因为原因不能供应自己的条件。必须有自由如果有任何具体的必要性。即自由是更多的术语。逃避什么需要滋养的发展意义,需要提供的条款。 Some say time is one. What a joke! Time is no one, for the supply of meaning is never the possession or enclosure of any epochal structure. This explains why the three threads of Western philosophy have all fallen flat, the Anglo-American, the Continental, and the Existential. That is, all of them would reduce value to the quantifier. The only result of that count is the loss of the enumerator in it.
下一个:
的心理情绪。

喜力啤酒吗?实际上,海德格尔是一个葡萄酒爱好者。
斯丹博翻译是一个更加可读版本的存在与时间比哈珀和罗版。Kaelin提供了一个清新清醒的评估。胡塞尔是呈现不必要的职业生涯之后,海德格尔评估他的整个方法在他所谓的“kehre”,或“转”(字面上,到了一个岔路口)。结果是一个动荡的劣质阅读古代思想家和修正的想法(拼写)“被”。在底部都是笨拙的混乱,但因为没有人甚至试图提出这个话题他至少应该注意。令人惊愕的看到无知的美国哲学“哲学家”!胡塞尔在他的时代被认为是德国哲学的生活精神,继承遗产的康德和黑格尔。海德格尔是他的继承人,即使他背叛了,信任,他也成为一个重要的影响之前,他的存在主义运动,虽然萨特实际上是由胡塞尔的影响更直接(几读他的早期作品想象力,胡塞尔的直接含义是“故意对象”)。
在存在与时间,海德格尔指出缺乏理解人类的情绪,似乎被推荐工作。考虑到他的时候,我想他一定目的一种弗洛伊德分析。但我挑战了自己,看到里面一个机会解释一下原因在情感的作用,这是相连的,没有一个受到另一个。因为是一个未解决的问题,这和追求确定性和持久性的类别和术语存在损坏。结果是一个严格的努力维持不变的需要改变。但由于自负的持久时间的关键是,变化是无法忍受或腐败自负的完善和永久的“存在”,这一变化不能允许被认可。所以只能采取一个变更的形式在自负的性格。我们“知道”随之而来的任期不能超过其先行词(这将影响我们的坚定性,甚至我们的识别)的影响也不能代理的原因(这将把“存在”的顺序我们假设我们知道它)。所以我们改变我们的思想意义或字符的,如何确定我们的情绪变化或我们如何看待它们。这似乎不恰当的正式的事实。 But if the extremity of rigor is that we are lost that conceit, if only in the least term of it, that "being" is a perfect or permanent term upon which the quantifier (to which "being" is the qualifier) can be relied upon to preserve the "law of contradiction" even in a real temporal world, then that quantifier is lost and quality, the meaning and worth of time, is the only real issue. and so feelings precede reason as a posterior entailment. We cannot anticipate the worth of time, or the meaning of being. And so no resoluteness can be "authentic".

一个简单的思想:
我连接宇宙中的一切
找到一个或全部一样
所以没有什么是真正的东西
和一些简单的。
=

被:

B ?
如果A = B, B = C, C =
但是B呢?
他们看起来都不同,那么什么是真理,
B它呢?
不同的或等于?
B它什么?
B B或不?
这是个问题。
B的本质,
亚里士多德,莎士比亚和我。

=
MJA

粗短的?
“Twas brillig slithy toves环流和平衡台的wabe ....”

我认为佩里的对比笛卡尔的自我是一种消失点,认为,复苏世界从怀疑反映,还在世界上有在思考之前,是恰当的。

布拉德,
笛卡尔一生都在规避审查。他问真正的问题,它是如何我们甚至可以状态的命题“我思是我”,他就会被指控异端,因为语言只能归功于基督教的上帝。海德格尔的优势受到了思想家像黑格尔,Simmel完成,布,狄尔泰,韦伯。但属性语言既存的世界并不比发明一个更令人满意的神性的来源。当存在与时间被写没有伟大的创新,它并没有打动他的导师胡塞尔。
迈克尔,
你完全自由假设你知道你的意思,但不是我,也不是我说服你。纪律可以约束,甚至专横的手中不仅像海德格尔,臭名昭著的欺负他的学生。但这是因为他,像很多人一样,不把严格自我批评的极致。但是没有一个关键响应别人的我们甚至不能将解决暴力的话语。训练有素的响应能力,节省了我们被欺负,而完全否定严谨性不欺负比严格的批评,停止自我批评。
“预期坚定地”的概念有一个重要的地方要求认知学科,为响应事件原因和意义不是预测的证据。但海德格尔的未煮熟的材料“被死亡”,而战利品的效果。我们不能预料到的一件事是我们存在的价值。为别人,不,这不是我们采取的措施。但它是通过他人的反应,我们在生活中得到任何证据可能有任何合适的通过我们的生活中任何值得我们的时间。我们不是彼此的测量,也不是自己的。但是我们的行为可能是合适的响应,通过它我们可以学习和修改的价值可能会有在美国。但“已经在世界”然后意味着什么?海德格尔被很多悲伤将一种机构的“存在”和“世界”。但是有一种感觉世界是一种机构。 The world is its offer of the facile term of our knowing it. Compare the difference between a foreign language and your native tongue and see immediately what I mean. This difference in facile "hearing" is not a simple matter of biology or socialization. It is an intensive engagement in a drama of uncompleted thought and meaning constantly revived and revisited and in the throes of examining ramifying and chancing to act and to respond. With every chance we take we differ, not just the meaning of the terms, but the very context of the drama engaged. This is not a game, as Wittgenstein would have it. It takes up the offer the world is as the means of attenuating the loss and the responsibility that is the ultimate meaning of it. Meaning is a drama of loss, lost conceit that we know what we mean, and the freedom enabled, through that loss, that its response is in responsibility of recognizing its worth, its worth even to the world, as the differing of the context of its lexical and formal tools. But we are never as alone in that drama of act and response than we are as "being already in a world" and so received the facile term attenuated the worth of that act and that response to each other. But there can be no resoluteness in the drama, as there always is in that facile attenuation of loss and responsibility the world is. It is precisely that we not anticipate death that we know the world at all. And so, we are already inauthentic there. But Heidegger does not define his "inauthenticity" as "being in the world", but as irresoluteness in anticipation of death. And yet we cannot know the worth of our being save as the response evidenced how opportune we may be to each other in the examination and measure of that worth. The details are difficult. Much more difficult than any text Heidegger ever produced. But the notion of "anticipatory resoluteness" is a contradiction so glaring as to demonstrate conclusively the same Calvinist dogma Descartes echoes in the notion of the "cogito sunt". That is, the notion, circuitously formulated through a thousand and more years of entrenched power struggles amongst the various intellectual religious and political/military power centers from which, in the form of the Reformation, ultimately emerged as the paradigm of covenant enshrined as the feudal relationship of lord and vassal, abstracted as a personal relation to the Christian god. Substitute "being", and you get the dogmatic character of Heidegger's thought, early and late, before and after the "kehre".

你好加里,我没有阅读海德格尔唉所以我不能回复你的评论我无法理解之上。至于Descates和“我思”是我我能理解。Descates租了一间房间在乌尔姆,他爬进一个炉子重新启动所有的知识教给他,后来他发现不确定或不真实的。留下的是一个绝对的,“我”。他发现自己,真相,但遗憾的是不能维护它,慢慢地使不确定性再次回到他的思想。如果我没记错的话,他开始与上帝。哦!笛卡尔发现真相,自己,失去了一遍。
他在发现过程是一个伟大的帮助我。只有我。一切!爱因斯坦认为,简化方程或还原论的方法,将所有的事情。可悲的是他接近真理的简单公式e = mc2然后像笛卡尔在他面前,又开始复合他的方程。以至于他聘请了数学家最后帮助他通过斗争。麦克斯韦尔和他的信念在光的速度,他错了。他寻找的解决方案总有一天会改变这个世界。
真理必使我们得以自由。
至于理解我上面的其他评论,B诗是一个应对“Dasien”或,仅此而已。
和简单的思维只有在回应约翰的“沉思”。
一切都比想象的更简单的解决方案! !
=

平等的加里是爱因斯坦寻找统一场方程。
当所有等于就是其中之一。
真理是=

格罗弗先生,
海德格尔使一个非常鲜明的区别是(dasein)遭受死亡和那些仅仅遭受“灭亡”。“死亡”的定义是不真实的,或者不能预测它的结束,它被一个问题作为其利益和关切的焦点。“此在”不只是努力活着,它知道它必须死,所以在某种程度上解决了将什么时候它有意义在这生活。海德格尔给了我们许多段落in-authenticity的主题。叫做优柔寡断的,因此如此笨拙地关心自己的是,它也可能是一种动物,只有遭受灭亡,没有意义的大厦创建定义时间作为一种特殊的时代。这意味着哲学影响的迷恋的意义的问题是一个漫长而艰难的道路,我不想进入,除非一个诚挚的兴趣显然是表示(而不只是说!)。我这条路这么长时间,我有渗透的地区只有海德格尔在地平线上,并会发现很难介绍编程初学者参考它长时间的兴趣海德格尔的事情。
迈克尔,
你假设麦克斯韦和爱因斯坦是同时代的人吗?这是洛伦兹变换,基于迈克耳孙-莫雷实验,相信爱因斯坦,和所有合理的物理学家,光速是一个常数。麦克斯韦是pre-relativity物理学家。你保证隐秘地“学”引用开始看起来更像剽窃。笛卡尔的“洞察力”已经彻底名誉扫地。自我确定最浪荡的哲学体系的基础。如果你想了解我思是我的我建议你做一些思考。你将去一个没有同一性。它要么是一个团结,无法计算单元的多重性,统一性,或只是一个多重性计算没有统一的同一性。无论哪种方式,你确信它是乏味的。 '=' simply does not mean what you say it does. You're just flat wrong about that. Logic 101 would knock that nonsense out of you. Dogma has a certain advantage, I understand that. It simply reasserts the same thing in the hopes that, eventually, all adversaries will be so forced to use your own terms that you can thereby simply and literally define them, by fiat of the terminology, in agreement with you. Have you ever seen a person 'saved'? It's quite a process. A person is surrounded by the community under the direction of an imperious preacher, and bullied into 'accepting the faith'. It's quite exactly like watching someone being tortured into confessing being a witch or a heretic. And what is really appalling is how the congregation regards this crime and inhumanity as a holy event. Michael, you're getting no hallelujah moment from me, and hopefully not from anyone else on this site. Meanwhile, I'm starting to feel like your posts are part of a Turing test, a badly programmed one.

我读和时间。这是有趣的。但过高的估计。

我看不到任何人如何描述作为二十世纪最伟大的哲学家海德格尔。如果存在与时间被认为是他最好的作品,然后,像约翰·佩里,先验凯文杜松子酒,我发现海德格尔的写作难以理解的胡言乱语。现在,我想有些人断言,他们知道他在说什么。如果他们真的这样做了,那么人们可能会看到他们如何能高度评价他。我不能这样做,因为有生活二十世纪的哲学家,在我看来,大大超过了马丁的思维能力。几个见过他们一样“灭亡”。写作是很有区别的反启蒙主义者的散文profound-sounding口头禅,实际上和有条不紊地呈现理论与研究论点和证据支持。写哲学,是一个重要的科班出身的哲学家们可以理解。时别的写作是如此复杂和tautistic忍不住认为作者是飞行一个幻想,只有自己才能了解。一位评论员写道,肯·威尔伯最好的他/她最喜欢的是二十世纪(这个)。 I read His earlier work and concur that it was well done. My first choice, though, would have to be John Searle: his clear-headedness and facility with linguistics makes his work enjoyable. And even someone green to philosophy can make sense of it. That I discovered his work late in life does not diminish its enlightening quality.