dunsscot

Joined

• started 23 topics
• posted 302 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by dunsscot

• 
  82

  Russell as "That Servant"; Re: Dunsscot

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  since dunsscot claims he's leaving this board, and in answer to my specific request for a committment to answer all replies i might give to his latest replies to my previous dissections of his nonsense he said that he would not, i won't be giving a detailed reply to him.. however, dunsscot's posts contain a number of statements that prove how easily the watchtower society fools the jw community by lying to it, either outright or in so many words.. in this post we will examine a fiction that the society has managed to get poor people like dunsscot to believe with respect to c. t. russell, namely, that russell never claimed that he was "the faithful and wise servant" of matthew 24:45. the simple truth is that russell did indeed believe it.

  the fact that he did was printed in the watch tower, and the society itself taught it until about 1927.. let's first look at the context of dunsscot's denial of this important bible student teaching.

  in the set of exchanges below, the reader can see that dunsscot is attempting to deny that jw leaders claim to be god's exclusive earthy spokesmen.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dunsscot

  :Conclusion: Russell was an arrogant pseudo-servant of YHWH. Quod erat demonstratum.:

  I think that should be "Quod erat demonstrandum."

  Duns the Scot

  "Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
• 
  19

  Heidegger's Dasein

  by dunsscot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for those who have trouble understanding basic existential concepts, may i suggest william barrett's work _irrational man_.

  on pp.

  218-219 of this monograph, barrett succinctly explains the significance of dasein in heideggerian thought.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dunsscot

  One of the primary reasons I brought up the subject of Dasein was to "justify" my use of language on this medium of communicative discourse. William Barrett lucidly explicates Heidegger’s approach to human language when he writes:

  "Men exist 'within language' prior to their uttering sounds because they exist within a mutual context of understanding, which in the end is nothing but Being itself."

  As I brought out earlier, Heidegger posited Dasein as a field of Being. That is, an area in which we live and breathe and move in-the-world. In the region of Being, language assumes an existential character. It is not composed of sounds, marks, or modal operators. Heidegger thinks that language only occurs because humans exist in a field of Being. As a result of their existence in the region of Being, such existents are primordially attuned to one another. Thus language arises out of the primitive "silence" of Being. For Heidegger, "silence is language; it may speak more eloquently than any words" (Barrett 223).

  These points of information bring home the fact that language is rooted in Dasein. Since Dasein (Being) both conceals itself and reveals itself, human language also is alethic (has the character of revealedness) and a-lethic (it has the character of concealedness). Because Duns employs communicative discourse in his field of Being, it is no wonder his speech is both alethic and a-lethic.

  Duns the Scot

  "Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
• 
  58

  Duns, et al, Free Will Vs. Determinism

  by larc in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what is your opinion on free will versus determinism?

  my feeling on the subject is pretty schizophrenic.

  as a person, i believe in free will.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dunsscot

  Larc,

  I think what physicist Frank J. Tipler has to say about freedom, God, and immortality in connection with science is of interest:

  On page 7 of The Physics of Immortality, Tipler reminds us that the German thinker Immanuel Kant (in the Preface to the Second Edition and in the Introduction of the Critique of Pure Reason) "declared science forever incapable of solving the three fundamental problems of metaphysics: God, freedom, and immortality; that is, Kant contended that physics can never determine if God exists, if we have free will, or if God will grant us immortal life."

  Tipler, however, takes issue with Kant's three postulates of reason. He thinks that these three "problems of metaphysics" can be answered by science. The only problem is that the answer to all three metaphysical questions "are probably He [God] does exist, probably we have free will, and probably He will grant us eternal life after we have died."

  Tipler says "probably," since "science is not in the business of giving an absolutely certain-to-be-true answer, valid for all time. Science can only give 'probably true' answers, as witness the fate of the geocentric hypothesis of Ptolemy, discussed above."

  What do you think about Tipler's observations on the matter of freedom and so forth?

  Duns the Scot

  "Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
• 
  19

  Heidegger's Dasein

  by dunsscot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for those who have trouble understanding basic existential concepts, may i suggest william barrett's work _irrational man_.

  on pp.

  218-219 of this monograph, barrett succinctly explains the significance of dasein in heideggerian thought.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dunsscot

  Chris:

  :Later (a few days ago) you started a post on the allegedly “monomaniacal” nature of some x-jws. The essential gist of your post was that most people who choose not to believe in your god inevitably end up living lives of “hedonic utility”.:

  No, that was not the essential gist of my post. I was actually arguing that some ex-JWs seem to display monomaniacal behavior. They seem to be excessively focused on the JW religion in an unhealthy way.

  :I responded by trying to engage you in discussion of the philosophy of social ecology, which I believe leads to a practical ethical system, because it is based on an understanding of human nature which suggests that nature itself impels us towards a society of freedom and equality.:

  In your earlier submission, you used the word "nature" without specifying what you meant. I should have called you on it, but I did not. Could you please define what you mean by "nature"? Otherwise, we are going to be talking past each other here.

  :You responded with a few criticisms, which reflected your misunderstanding of social ecology (and, incidentally, a misunderstanding of any post-Heidegger dialectical thinking), which I in turn responded to.:

  Any misunderstanding might have resulted from your failure to delineate clearly your position and your definition of nature.

  :You then abandoned the thread.Why are you so afraid do discuss philosophy in a way that makes it relevant for the issues and people on this Board?:

  I think I explained why I "abandoned" the thread. I was trying to reply to AF by Friday and then hit the road. But I did not complete my responses to him. So I will be around for a few days. Since I am in the process of leaving this forum, why should I get immersed in threads that are going to take a lot of time and energy and prevent me from leaving?

  :In this post you again refer to Aristotle and Heidegger’s rejection of dualism. Accurate, but so what? What’s your point? Can’t you take it to the next level and give it some relevance for real people?:

  I think one problem stems from our starting points. I personally think that one must first formulate a theory, juxtapose it with human experience, and fully understand and then clearly delineate the said theory. This process takes time, especially if one adheres to the principles of phenomenological realism. A phenomenological realist tries to get back to the things themselves when he or she formulates a theoretical system. Thus, my emphasis on theory. AFTER the theory is formulated adequately, then one can begin to talk about praxis. That is how I philosophize.

  :A discussion of the problems of dualism and wholeness would lead into discussion of “human nature” and practical concepts of freedom, equality and ecology. If you want to discuss philosophy, that’s fine - just try to make it relevant.Thanks for your attention. Please help yourself to a free piece of pie on the way out.:

  I am actually more interested in metaphysics than with the realm of Becoming. If one spends his or her time contemplating "the things themselves" or those eternal concepts that are immutable and not subject to the vicissitudes of temporality, he or she will live and teach a way of life that will benefit those in the realm of Becoming. So I do not worry about capitalist systems and so forth. That is beyond my philosophical purview.

  Duns the Scot

  "Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
• 
  19

  Heidegger's Dasein

  by dunsscot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for those who have trouble understanding basic existential concepts, may i suggest william barrett's work _irrational man_.

  on pp.

  218-219 of this monograph, barrett succinctly explains the significance of dasein in heideggerian thought.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dunsscot

  :Duns,

  Could you explain the statement, that according to Heidegger, man goes beyond the envelope of his skin.:

  Actually William Barrett, when explaining Heidegger's notion of Dasein, noted that a child who first learns how to respond to his or her name does not simply think that his or her name is "the name of an existence that takes place within the envelope of his [or her] skin" (Barrett, 219). In other words, a child's name has to do with his or her field of Being. We only are (Heidegger contends) when we are in-the-world.

  Barrett adds:

  "To be sure, this existence is always mine; it is not an impersonal fact, as the existence of a table is merely to be an individual case of the class table. Nevertheless, the mine-ness of my existence does not consist in the fact that there is an I-substance at the center of my field [of Being], but rather in that this mine-ness permeates the whole field of my Being" (219). To put it simply, Dasein participates in the banality of everydayness conducted by Das man (the they).

  :On your last post, why did you use the word praxis instead of the word practice?:

  Force of habit.

  Duns the Scot

  "Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
• 
  58

  Duns, et al, Free Will Vs. Determinism

  by larc in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what is your opinion on free will versus determinism?

  my feeling on the subject is pretty schizophrenic.

  as a person, i believe in free will.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dunsscot

  Dear larc:

  :Duns,

  Whether schizophrenia, autism, and sociapathy are primarily genetic or enviornmental is beside the point. Both genetics and environment or their combination cause conditions that greatly reduce the free will of those affilicted with these disturbances. Thus, free will can not be complete. It is limited, if it exists at all.:

  I think we have to delineate what we mean by free will before we determine whether we have it or not. If we are going to define free will in terms of no or practically no limitations, then we are not free. But most thinkers that I have read do not define free will in this highly restrictive sense. I sure do not mean that we are volitionally unlimited when I employ the term "free will."

  :When I discussed language formation, I was not discussing the prewired state of the brain that allows humans to learn language easily (John Locke was wrong, re: tabla rosa). I was referring to the ease of learning a specific language in a specific culture. This ease of learning in the child applies not only to language formation but also to a myriad of specific cultural traits as well, and places many limits on the adult in terms of free will.:

  How does the ability to learn a specific language in a specific culture put free will in jeopardy? Is not the acquisition of a specific language the result of an interaction between innate factors and environmental ones? Are you utilizing Skinner's explanation of language acquisition to argue against free will? Furthermore, what do you do with those individuals who possess particular differentiae that could not be a direct result of the culture they live in? How do you explain the so-called "invulnerables"?

  :Regarding the concept of self-transendence as seen by therapists, you would have to define self-transendence. You also have to remember that therapists who resort to such terms are not scientists. They are practicioners. Because they use such a word, does not mean that is valid or has meaning as a construct. (Did Keohler's experiments with chimps and insight learning indicate that they had self-transendence?):

  To avoid confusion, let us use the term self-awareness or self-consciousness. Theologians and some therapists use the terminology, self-transcendence. But that way of wording matters may result in unnecessary confusion. So let us just talk about self-awareness. This is what Richard Restak (M.D.) calls it. But when I speak of self-awareness, I am talking about the ability to have a sense of self or the ability to reflect on one's thoughts (the capacity of thought to think itself). As Covey writes:

  "Now think for a minute about how your mind is working? Is it quick or alert? Do you sense that you are torn between doing this mental exercise and evaluating the point to be made out of it? Your ability to do what you just did is uniquely human. Animals do not possess this ability. We call it 'self-awareness' or the ability to think about your thought process" (Covey, 66).

  He also gives the example of Victor Frankl, who at one time was a strict determinist, but then eventually realized "Between stimulus and response, man has the freedom to choose" (70).

  :You mentioned that all the variables are not known in order to make precise predictions. That is axiomatic. It does not mean that the theory of determinism is incorrect. Operating from this theorectical perspective has advanced an understanding of human behavior far more than the theory of free will.:

  The theory of determinism has been called into question by more than one scientist. It has its advantages, no doubt about it. But it also has deficiencies. You must also remember that determinists start with certain assumptions and are not impartial observers. Determinism cannot account for the whole of our experience adequately. A few years ago, I read a book by a therapist who said he used to be a determinist until he noticed he was having difficulty helping some of his patients with the deterministic model. He then began to take human self-awareness into account and thought this approach netted greater therapeutic gains.

  By the way, when you wrote meta science, I think you meant meta psychology.:

  No, I meant metascience. See the works by Gerard Radnitzsky.
• 
  19

  Heidegger's Dasein

  by dunsscot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for those who have trouble understanding basic existential concepts, may i suggest william barrett's work _irrational man_.

  on pp.

  218-219 of this monograph, barrett succinctly explains the significance of dasein in heideggerian thought.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dunsscot

  Dear Chris:

  I think I explained why I did not pick up on the discussion about social ecology. I have some comments to make later in reply to your post. But I assure you that I am not afraid to discuss the practical aspect of philosophy with anyone. But I think that one must thoroughly work out a theory in technical terms before he or she can convert the said theory into praxis.

  Larc:

  I told you that I would comment on the "fre will" thread today and I will keep my promise. I had to work today and take care of some other important business.

  Later,
  Dan

  Duns the Scot
• 
  19

  Heidegger's Dasein

  by dunsscot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for those who have trouble understanding basic existential concepts, may i suggest william barrett's work _irrational man_.

  on pp.

  218-219 of this monograph, barrett succinctly explains the significance of dasein in heideggerian thought.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dunsscot

  :Duns,
  I'm frustrated.

  When the apostle Paul presented his argument on Mars Hill, the Areopagus, he used a single familiar quotation to appeal to his audience. He did not cite Plato or other philosophers alive or dead; rather, his simple appeal was clearly expressed in his own words. That message rings clear even today.:

  Admittedly, Paul did not cite Plato or Aristotle, though I think he leaned on their writings. When I am participating in the Christian ministry work--in whatever form it may take--I also refrain from appealing to Plato or Socrates.

  :You've had a unique opportunity here to do something similar with those who find themselves groping for God. Even the thread title will be a turnoff to all but a very few persons, who themselves have read the dead Heidegger.:

  What approach would you suggest, Max? Most folks here do not trust the message from the Bible. They sure do not want to hear what the WT says, except to criticize it. So I decided to take a different approach. I personally think that one can indirectly find God by reading Heidegger. Crazy, ain't it.

  :You won't find me quibblingly criticizing your "Quod erat demonstrandum" [sic] or expressions like "kitten-kaboodle" and many others.:

  I never say "kitten-kaboodle" and I do not know why you typed [sic] by Quod erat demonstrandum. Have I made an inflectional mistake? I normally see it written this way. Even my Latin dictionary has it in this form.

  :I do however express my deep sadness at your having missed a huge window to advance the broad concepts of Christianity, without resorting to what ultimately is merely the cerebral.:

  IMHO, this is not the place to advance the broad concepts of Christianity. I would much rather advance the contemplative life or theistic arguments and subsequently introduce others to the Aristotelian/Thomist way of life. Aristotle's way does find its culmination in the theisitic contemplation of Thomas. Yes my approach is different. But I have used it before with academics and had great success in making them think God's thoughts after him, whereas they formerly did not.

  :I wish you well personally in whatever you do.

  Thanks, Max. I wish you well also.

  Duns the Scot
• 
  19

  Heidegger's Dasein

  by dunsscot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for those who have trouble understanding basic existential concepts, may i suggest william barrett's work _irrational man_.

  on pp.

  218-219 of this monograph, barrett succinctly explains the significance of dasein in heideggerian thought.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dunsscot

  Dear Englishman,

  Since you are such an advanced philosophy student, I would like to suggest a more advanced work for you. :-) Otto Poggeler's _Martin Heidegger's Path of Thinking (Der Denkweg Martin Heideggers)_ is an excellent book. Allow me to share a quote:

  "Heidegger replaced the transcendental I with Dasein. Dasein is not an I which constitutes every being while itself lacking the characteristics of a being. Rather, its sense of Being is positively determined as 'factical existence' and thereby set apart from every other being. Existence is being-in-the-world, and indeed a factical having-always-been-in-the-world alongside beings and with others" (Poggeler, 56).

  Cheers!

  Duns the Scot
• 
  19

  Heidegger's Dasein

  by dunsscot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for those who have trouble understanding basic existential concepts, may i suggest william barrett's work _irrational man_.

  on pp.

  218-219 of this monograph, barrett succinctly explains the significance of dasein in heideggerian thought.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dunsscot

  To all:

  For those who have trouble understanding basic existential concepts, may I suggest William Barrett's work _Irrational Man_. On pp. 218-219 of this monograph, Barrett succinctly explains the significance of Dasein in Heideggerian thought. Dasein (Heidegger claims) points to human Being-in-the-world. Alternatively, we could also say that Dasein (literally, Being-there in German) is the human field(region) of Being.

  Heidegger employs the term Dasein to avoid making one very critical theoretical mistake. Rene Descartes had previously posited a dualistic form of philosophical anthropology. He had thought of man in terms of the res cogitans and the res extensa. Descartes, in other words, had formulated a dualistic theory of man. He thus made it possible for man to be an object or a subject. This French thinker also believed there was a radical difference between thinking substance (res cogitans) and extended substance (res extensa). Philosophers still have a difficult time trying to "unite" the two substances and figure out how they relate to one another.

  By starting with the cogito, Descartes also implied that man could BE without Being-in-the-world. Heidegger rejected such a dualistic, objectifying, and isolating notion of man. As Barrett words matters: "One of the most remarkable things about Heidegger's description of human existence is that it is made without his using the term 'man' at all! He thereby avoids the assumption that we are dealing with a definite object with a fixed nature--that we already know, in short, what man is."

  By employing the term Dasein, Heidegger also makes it clear that human existence is not confined to the "envelope" of the skin. We are are, says Heidegger, when we are in-the-world.

  Duns the Scot