Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Decker drags Sartre's concepts of language back to Husserl

Expand Messages
  • Richard Radandt
    The problem with philosophy isn t language as philosophy is always and not yet a solution to the resolution of the reifications and deifications of the
    Message 1 of 7 , Jul 31, 2002
      The problem with philosophy isn't language as philosophy is always and not yet a solution to the resolution of the reifications and deifications of the abstract in the world. Language if it comes out of the struggle of the working class in the elimination of the capitalist class of rents, interest, and property is never in a compartment and never breaks existences into pieces and parts, as it's the existence of the Being in the world. The true existential is never beyond language and it's always and not yet before language as the primordial existence. Being in the world is never greater than the sum of its parts as there are no parts in Being in the world. Communication isn't a linear process as if it's Decker you would not write and believe what you do. I'm really kind here. The existential is all and not yet, but it's not one of convergence.



      The unity or the care and the concern of the Being in the world demonstrate there's no inner and outer and never were. See Carl Jung and Husserl are wrong again. The reflection is never an inward of an outward as there's no reflection. Staring into the ocean with a bright sun over your head doesn't count. Read once again the first chapter of Camus', The Outsider. One can't assign a distinction to the inner or the other. One can't even assign a distinction to the Being in the world. Language can't struggle and only humans can struggle. If you insist on using the concept of holistic condition, then you are guilty of a mechanical reduction of Being in the world to something instrumental. Sartre, although I love him with the passion of my nothingness, didn't reconcile the in itself-alone and the for itself-alone, and this is your job and my job and he agrees with this statement.



      Copyright July 2002 by Richard Radandt at richradandt@... page one of one



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Tommy Beavitt
      ... I don t entirely agree with this. Language has, it is true, been guilty of a mechanical reduction of Being in the world to something instrumental. At least
      Message 2 of 7 , Aug 1, 2002
        At 9:46 pm -0700 31/7/02, Richard Radandt wrote:
        >If you insist on using the concept of holistic condition, then you
        >are guilty of a mechanical reduction of Being in the world to
        >something instrumental.

        I don't entirely agree with this. Language has, it is true, been
        guilty of a mechanical reduction of Being in the world to something
        instrumental. At least it reduces to the extent that its user
        believes it does.

        But obviously no one who is using the concept of the whole believes
        that it can be reduced to its constituent parts.

        That is the whole point!

        >Sartre, although I love him with the passion of my nothingness,
        >didn't reconcile the in itself-alone and the for itself-alone, and
        >this is your job and my job and he agrees with this statement.

        I think I agree with you here though.

        Tommy
      • Elaine
        Not sure if this helps but came across this while studying today :- Edmund Husserl - Cartesian Meditations in Continential Philosophy -An Anthology p.100 A
        Message 3 of 7 , Aug 1, 2002
          Not sure if this helps but came across this while studying today :-

          Edmund Husserl - Cartesian Meditations in "Continential Philosophy -An
          Anthology" p.100

          A "philosophy" is possible and in question. According to "intention",
          therefore, the idea of science and philosophy involves an order of
          cognition, proceeding intrinsically earlier to intrinsically later
          cognition; ultimately, then, a beginning and a line of advance that are not
          chosen arbitrarily but have their basis "in the nature of things
          themselves.....by immersing ourselves meditatively in the general intention
          of scientific endeavour, we discover fundamental parts of the final idea,
          genuine science, which though vague at first, governs that striving....all
          must be derived from evidence, from "experience" in which the affairs and
          affair complexes in question are present to me as "they
          themselves.......Owing to the instability and ambiguity of common language
          and its much too great complacency about completeness of expression, we
          require even where we use its means of expression, a new legitimation of
          significations by orientating them according to accrued insights, and a
          fixing of words as expressing its significance thus legitimated.

          Love & Hugs
          Elaine
        • decker150
          Has anyone ever noticed how Richard will take whatever you say and then just, almost as if predictable, take the opposing, correcting, denying point of view.
          Message 4 of 7 , Aug 1, 2002
            Has anyone ever noticed how Richard will take whatever you say
            and then just, almost as if predictable, take the opposing,
            correcting, denying point of view. It seems fairly strategic to his
            writing style. I admit that it bother's me, and I would like to
            challenge the rest of you to not be intimidated by it, but to
            seriously try to figure out where he is coming from. The implication
            is that he thinks he has a better handle on our discussion points,
            (well, don't we all?) with some aspects of Sartrean contributions,
            spattered with deep seated working class resentments for capitalism,
            US policy and his primary care and concerned for flesh and blood.

            What troubles me is that, after what he responds with, I'm left with
            only a dissonance, not any clarity. Can anyone help me with where he
            is at, what I am missing? I am willing to consider him a brilliant
            thinker, seer or whatever, but I really am a lost with his style.

            Any clues?

            And Richard, before you start in on me, let me go ahead and do it for
            you. I, Richard do not take the opposing, correcting, denying point of
            view. I am not coming from anywhere, so once again, you are bothered
            by me and not concern with flesh and blood. There is no implication,
            as it is always and is not yet, and I do not have a handled on
            anything, but a care for flesh and blood which leaves you with
            dissonance and not clarity. I am not brilliant and there are not any
            clues.

            Dang - if I thought like that - I wouldn't think I was thinking at
            all.

            Joe

            --- In Sartre@y..., "Richard Radandt" <richradandt@i...> wrote:
            >
            > The problem with philosophy isn't language as philosophy is always
            and not yet a solution to the resolution of the reifications and
            deifications of the abstract in the world. Language if it comes out of
            the struggle of the working class in the elimination of the capitalist
            class of rents, interest, and property is never in a compartment and
            never breaks existences into pieces and parts, as it's the existence
            of the Being in the world. The true existential is never beyond
            language and it's always and not yet before language as the primordial
            existence. Being in the world is never greater than the sum of its
            parts as there are no parts in Being in the world. Communication isn't
            a linear process as if it's Decker you would not write and believe
            what you do. I'm really kind here. The existential is all and not
            yet, but it's not one of convergence.
            >
            >
            >
            > The unity or the care and the concern of the Being in the world
            demonstrate there's no inner and outer and never were. See Carl Jung
            and Husserl are wrong again. The reflection is never an inward of an
            outward as there's no reflection. Staring into the ocean with a bright
            sun over your head doesn't count. Read once again the first chapter of
            Camus', The Outsider. One can't assign a distinction to the inner or
            the other. One can't even assign a distinction to the Being in the
            world. Language can't struggle and only humans can struggle. If you
            insist on using the concept of holistic condition, then you are guilty
            of a mechanical reduction of Being in the world to something
            instrumental. Sartre, although I love him with the passion of my
            nothingness, didn't reconcile the in itself-alone and the for
            itself-alone, and this is your job and my job and he agrees with this
            statement.
            >
            >
            >
            > Copyright July 2002 by Richard Radandt at richradandt@i... page one
            of one
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • james tan
            The unity or the care and the concern of the Being in the world demonstrate there s no inner and outer and never were. See Carl Jung and Husserl are wrong
            Message 5 of 7 , Aug 1, 2002
              "The unity or the care and the concern of the Being in the world demonstrate
              there's no inner and outer and never were. See Carl Jung and Husserl are
              wrong again. "

              i dont think u have read husserl correctly. he was the one who seriously
              challenged the dualistic, subject/object, inside/outside dicotomy way of
              thinking through the phenomenological method. it would be good if u quote
              the source from the authors instead of just making a statement as if ur
              saying so is enough - yea, u maybe copyrighted, but it hardly constitute a
              reliable source of authority. so, quote/reference husserl and jung their
              works to support ur claims.

              james.

              From: "Richard Radandt" <richradandt@...>
              Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
              To: "decker150" <decker150@...>, <Sartre@yahoogroups.com>
              Subject: [Sartre] Decker drags Sartre's concepts of language back to Husserl
              Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 21:46:45 -0700


              The problem with philosophy isn't language as philosophy is always and not
              yet a solution to the resolution of the reifications and deifications of the
              abstract in the world. Language if it comes out of the struggle of the
              working class in the elimination of the capitalist class of rents, interest,
              and property is never in a compartment and never breaks existences into
              pieces and parts, as it's the existence of the Being in the world. The true
              existential is never beyond language and it's always and not yet before
              language as the primordial existence. Being in the world is never greater
              than the sum of its parts as there are no parts in Being in the world.
              Communication isn't a linear process as if it's Decker you would not write
              and believe what you do. I'm really kind here. The existential is all and
              not yet, but it's not one of convergence.



              The unity or the care and the concern of the Being in the world demonstrate
              there's no inner and outer and never were. See Carl Jung and Husserl are
              wrong again. The reflection is never an inward of an outward as there's no
              reflection. Staring into the ocean with a bright sun over your head doesn't
              count. Read once again the first chapter of Camus', The Outsider. One can't
              assign a distinction to the inner or the other. One can't even assign a
              distinction to the Being in the world. Language can't struggle and only
              humans can struggle. If you insist on using the concept of holistic
              condition, then you are guilty of a mechanical reduction of Being in the
              world to something instrumental. Sartre, although I love him with the
              passion of my nothingness, didn't reconcile the in itself-alone and the for
              itself-alone, and this is your job and my job and he agrees with this
              statement.



              Copyright July 2002 by Richard Radandt at richradandt@... page one
              of one



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





              _________________________________________________________________
              MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
              http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
            • Elaine
              Everything is in the world; all being, all thoughts, all neurological activity - it s all just being in the world. Well, general language is an
              Message 6 of 7 , Aug 1, 2002
                Everything is in the world; all being, all thoughts, all neurological
                activity - it's all just being in the world. > Well, general language is an
                approproximation, not a exact / legal precision. All the monistic theories
                have pointed this out long ago. B.F. Skinner developed his Behaviorist
                psychology. The language of
                inner -vrs- outer indicates location. A thought is located
                in-the-head even if the head is being-in-the-world. That is not to say
                what is 'in-the-head' did not have it's origin in an 'external' stimuli.

                I am incredibly exhausted today and was yesterday for that matter. Yesterday
                i studied Heidigger and today i studied Husserl, but that's another email
                perhaps tomorrow lol but for now let me say "not" all concepts within the
                mind are the result of external stimuli. In the mind we may conceive of all
                imaginable creatures and experiences that do not exist within the world, but
                they do exist within the mind. Given as phenomena within the world is given
                validity in relation to symbols and tokens within the mind, some believing
                that these a priori symbols/tokens conjoined in mind, create the reality we
                perceive, it then must follow that symbols/tokens within the mind exist as
                possibilities for created reality even though we have had no sense
                experience of these things within this 3d reality. Given this understanding,
                a duality of inner and outer world must exist.

                Gees i wasn't going to talk about Husserl in this email but lol Ok Husserl
                suggests that all within the world could be said to be an illusion and our
                collective communicative definition of reality merely an agreed acceptance
                which cannot be defined as absolute truth. All external sense is not
                apodictic (cannot be demonstrated). He suggested that if we come from a
                standpoint of doubt (Descartes), the Other than I, may well be merely data
                of sensuous experience of their bodily organisms and if I doubt the
                existence of the Other, the Other becomes a phenomena of being, rather than
                something that "is". However, this beingness of phenomena is that by which
                critical decisions are made possible, giving sense and validity to my
                definative Being.

                I am only up to this point in my reading of Husserl but i will draw it in
                with Heidigger tomorrow.

                Tonight my mind is on overload lol.

                La Paz
                Elaine
              • decker150
                Richard said: The unity or the care and the concern of the Being in the world demonstrate there s no inner and outer and never were. Joe says: There is no
                Message 7 of 7 , Aug 1, 2002
                  Richard said: The unity or the care and the concern of the Being in
                  the world demonstrate there's no inner and outer and never were.

                  Joe says: There is no duality in my dog either, who languishes over
                  his bowl of food, sniffing the closest butt, who has care and concern
                  over his flesh and blood, ever ready to scratch anything that itches.

                  I think it is commonly agreed that there is no inner and outer. Once
                  again, is language misleading us, or are we misleading ourself, saying
                  things that are not in accord with what is actually the case.

                  Is there no inside my home and no outside it either? All is one. So
                  when I say, I am inside my home, am I wrong, am I in bad faith? It
                  only appears that my bodily organs are inside my body, underneath it's
                  skin that faces outward to the world, and that it is a delusion that
                  my memories and thoughts are inside my brain. This is only an
                  delusion, bad faith, self-deception. Everything is in the world; all
                  being, all thoughts, all neurological activity - it's all just being
                  in the world.

                  Well, general language is an approproximation, not a exact / legal
                  precision. All the monistic theories have pointed this out long ago.
                  B.F. Skinner developed his Behaviorist psychology. The language of
                  inner -vrs- outer indicates location. A thought is located
                  in-the-head even if the head is being-in-the-world. That is not to
                  say what is 'in-the-head' did not have it's origin in an 'external'
                  stimuli. Sure, within the human experience, what is going on in the
                  head is only a response from the sensory signals from the unity of
                  being-in-the world. The experiments with sensory deprivation tanks
                  pointed that out, if you put a man in a black room, cut off from all
                  sensory stimuli, in a silent room or floating in a dark pool of still
                  water, there is no consciousness of the immediate environment. One's
                  thought are allowed to search through past memories and experiences in
                  isolation until one is driven insane.

                  Sartre pointed this out about the cafe proprietor, who, when the cafe
                  had emptied, so did his head.

                  Immanual Kant devoted some writings to the 'a priori' realization,
                  where a unique combination of unrelated thoughts came together in an
                  unexpect way to produce an entirely independent realization that had
                  no basis in direct experience. The assumption is one of priorities.
                  If something comes before something else, it is assumed to be the
                  source-cause of the thing that comes afterwards. Likewise, the
                  existentialist assumes that since the ground of existence preceeds
                  essence, then essence itself is a slave to that ground; this is the
                  fatalistic materialist view that the one ultimate reality is
                  existential; primal dark matter - is supreme over all.

                  Sorry, but I just don't believe this. So call me a dreamer.

                  Richard has to put those German idealist down, including Hegel and
                  Immanual Kant because his materialist (flesh and blood concern) reigns
                  supreme in his imagination; an imagination, IMHO, he values less than
                  the precious flesh and blood which matters more to him. This is the
                  way it is for Richard in his views, including conscious care and
                  concern which are as much part of 'his own' for-itself projecting
                  possibility, but merely views arbitrarily imposed by himself which
                  have no part in mine. My...my...my, who can be right?

                  Joe
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.