The archeology of genealogy
June 25th 2007 21:47
A post to link these so paradoxal things in philosophy. A systematization for the infinte deepness of reality. I'm writing this one to explain to a friend who asked what the hell i was talking about some months ago..
Fisrt of all, for people to understand, i need to explain what i mean by archeology and genealogy.
Archeology is used by philosophers to to define systems and shemes on for real life things. The archeologist digs into some domain to sort out a system with which we can explain (by models or analogies) the subject. The term is often used to explain the works of Kant.
An example of how it is to create an archeology of our reasoning (Critique of pure reason, p.92):
Genealogy is used by phylosophers to explain the "ontology epistemology" of Nietzsche. His theory of world tells that for every truth we find, there is allways something deeper inside, no matter how much we dig into it.
A good place where the man himself presents his idea (Beyond good and Evil, topic 289):
So we can explain a system for genealogy.
Reality is an infinte dimensional space, where it's facts project into our minds (as mathematical vectors project from one base to another) and are distorted (like in an Linear Transform). Every sense and language is responsible for projecting the world into your mind, and no one has access to reality, since our minds are not infinte. Once in our minds, we can work them in any way, finding analogies, them creating models that will allow us to act in response to the world.
Since we can't access reality, we could use for the best the collection of every being's interpretation and define it as "the closest thing" we can get. The facts will never be completely clear, but the more people see it, the closest we'll be.
On the other way round, the best one can get is to interpret better the world, trying to enlarge his mind to be able to understand reality better. (And thus in the limit be God. heeh)
The archeology of genealogy is the infintity of dimensions presented for us in each fact, and the transformations it passes to get to our mind.
Comments.
It is clear that we've been studing Dasein since the begining of ontology, but we thought we could take away time and space (and history and etc.) and take conclusions on it. Not even for us, beings that "care". (critic on Heidegger's ontology, don't bother if you don't get).
And what's the point of dividing ontology and epistemology if things are nothing but what we know about them, and in the other way round we're learning more and more each moment?
Ontolgy would be the epistemology of God?
What essence can you find if there will be allways an essence for it? What's the point of searching the essence of things in time at all?
And what causality can be achieved in a system of infinite causes? Again, do an inifinte number of causes still leave a place for causality?
Uula
Fisrt of all, for people to understand, i need to explain what i mean by archeology and genealogy.
Archeology is used by philosophers to to define systems and shemes on for real life things. The archeologist digs into some domain to sort out a system with which we can explain (by models or analogies) the subject. The term is often used to explain the works of Kant.
An example of how it is to create an archeology of our reasoning (Critique of pure reason, p.92):
OUR knowledge springs from two fundamental sources of the
mind; the first is the capacity of receiving representations
(receptivity for impressions), the second is the power of know-
ing an object through these representations (spontaneity [in
the production] of concepts). Through the first an object is given
to us, through the second the object is thought in relation to
that [given] representation (which is a mere determination of
the mind). Intuition and concepts constitute, therefore, the ele-
ments of all our knowledge, so that neither concepts without an
intuition in some way corresponding to them, nor intuition with-
out concepts, can yield knowledge. Both may be either pure or
empirical. When they contain sensation (which presupposes the
actual presence of the object), they are empirical. When there is
no mingling of sensation with the representation,they are pure.
Sensation may be entitled the material of sensible knowledge.
Pure intuition, therefore, contains only the form under which
something is intuited; the pure concept only the form of the
thought of an object in general. Pure intuitions or pure con-
cepts alone are possible a priori, empirical intuitions and
empirical concepts only a posteriori.
mind; the first is the capacity of receiving representations
(receptivity for impressions), the second is the power of know-
ing an object through these representations (spontaneity [in
the production] of concepts). Through the first an object is given
to us, through the second the object is thought in relation to
that [given] representation (which is a mere determination of
the mind). Intuition and concepts constitute, therefore, the ele-
ments of all our knowledge, so that neither concepts without an
intuition in some way corresponding to them, nor intuition with-
out concepts, can yield knowledge. Both may be either pure or
empirical. When they contain sensation (which presupposes the
actual presence of the object), they are empirical. When there is
no mingling of sensation with the representation,they are pure.
Sensation may be entitled the material of sensible knowledge.
Pure intuition, therefore, contains only the form under which
thought of an object in general. Pure intuitions or pure con-
cepts alone are possible a priori, empirical intuitions and
empirical concepts only a posteriori.
Genealogy is used by phylosophers to explain the "ontology epistemology" of Nietzsche. His theory of world tells that for every truth we find, there is allways something deeper inside, no matter how much we dig into it.
A good place where the man himself presents his idea (Beyond good and Evil, topic 289):
The hermit does not believe that a philosopher—assuming that a philosopher has always first been a hermit—has ever expressed his real and final opinion in his books: Don’t people write books expressly to hide what they have stored inside them? In fact, he will have doubts whether a philosopher could generally have “real and final” opinions, whether in his case behind every cave there does not still lie, and must lie, a deeper cavern—a more comprehensive, stranger, richer world beyond the surface, an abyss behind every reason, under every “foundation.”
So we can explain a system for genealogy.
Reality is an infinte dimensional space, where it's facts project into our minds (as mathematical vectors project from one base to another) and are distorted (like in an Linear Transform). Every sense and language is responsible for projecting the world into your mind, and no one has access to reality, since our minds are not infinte. Once in our minds, we can work them in any way, finding analogies, them creating models that will allow us to act in response to the world.
Since we can't access reality, we could use for the best the collection of every being's interpretation and define it as "the closest thing" we can get. The facts will never be completely clear, but the more people see it, the closest we'll be.
On the other way round, the best one can get is to interpret better the world, trying to enlarge his mind to be able to understand reality better. (And thus in the limit be God. heeh)
The archeology of genealogy is the infintity of dimensions presented for us in each fact, and the transformations it passes to get to our mind.
Comments.
It is clear that we've been studing Dasein since the begining of ontology, but we thought we could take away time and space (and history and etc.) and take conclusions on it. Not even for us, beings that "care". (critic on Heidegger's ontology, don't bother if you don't get).
And what's the point of dividing ontology and epistemology if things are nothing but what we know about them, and in the other way round we're learning more and more each moment?
Ontolgy would be the epistemology of God?
What essence can you find if there will be allways an essence for it? What's the point of searching the essence of things in time at all?
And what causality can be achieved in a system of infinite causes? Again, do an inifinte number of causes still leave a place for causality?
Uula
| 29 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
