anti-philosophy
the nonsense of the question of the meaning of life.
it is possible that i am a simple mind, a peasant like a 'bauer' in german language. 'bauen' in german language also means constructive building. i am aware for longer time now that almost all philosophers are using such difficult words and language. this is particular true for heidegger.
i searched on the internet and i categorized everything, what is published until now about heidegger. the opinions of the other philosophers about heidegger are split. his 'tractata' are almost obscure for normal people and surely not a treat. because of that it is almost impossible that heidegger tells the truth about being. i call this logic by using common sense.
was it not heidegger, who called 'being' the most obscure word in ontic and ontology and that he for once would illuminate the darkness for ever (enlightment?). but by the use of his special words he created an uneasy language, uncomprehensible for normal persons, except for his adepts?
probably it is because of the nonsense he wrote about the meaning of being. philosophers use - as i call this - special words (neologisms) a 'language', a kind of code that starts with ontic, ontology, metaphysics, epistemology and ends by the so-called logic with the logic consequence a kind of 'wortsalat' (this for the unsane among us).
a painful remark is the following statement: assume that heidegger indeed is so intelligent and that he can be only understood by so-called other intelligent people, what is the gain for us common people? what is the meaning of that? ah, you want a formule: suppose that heidegger's intelligence occurs in 1:100.000 and that there are about 1.000.000.000 (1 miljard) intelligent people with a more than an average iq, than he would write for 10.000 special odd people in a world consisting of a population of 6.650.370.000 (6.7 miljard) humans.
by the way, why should heidegger succeed to solve the problem of the meaning of being, knowing that all previous (greek) and later philosophers failed to do so? and because i am a simple mind is my assumption the following: how more complicated the argumentation is, how further away from the truth, even so when 'true' truth doesn't exist. divida et impera by the game of words and special language.
in my opinion is a genuine philosopher great, who can explain us in simple words what the point is. for example my deceased friend cees verhoeven, who was capable to analyse and explain trivial things in a way that even a child could follow his reasoning.
it is only possible to understand the meaning of being from my-being in the world. when i am not there, there is even nothing, even not if there is something of nothing. ergo being is only of interest as long as i live. of cause it is possible to be of interest even when i am not there in place or time like after my death, but this is practical limited by the period that they live.
i am implicit myself in my world, but not only for myself. in this way i am explicit. this applies to my family, friends, and social contacts in my world. they all contribute to my self-perception and self-esteem. of course this vision is an egocentric one, but on the other hand is it difficult to experience my world from a vision of 'their' world, even when they have the same premisses.
this means that we are woven in a kind of social network, that is a part of my being in this world. in this social network we have our priorities and it is clear that direct environment like family has the highest priority followed by friends, social contacts and the rest of the outer-world, who is also mine. culture (but not cultivation) plays an important role because culture approaches the 'being' from inside spontaneously.
notwithstanding it is possible that i can make myself and others happy by sharing small gifts. i do not want to talk about ethics. ipso facto the meaning of my life is determinated by my being-in-the world and in addition by my social contacts in my world. the meaning of being, my being, is determinated by the time that i live. what more sense can there be than the meaning of my temporarily life on earth? not everybody is a 'mother-teresa'!
work on the meaning of your own life and don't let it depend on others, those charlatans, who call themselves philosophers and who tells you how the meaning of your being has to look like. they are too insane for normal words!
ps: even the antique greek philosophers were supported by the rich man, who doubted their existence from boredom. the subsidy, we think to acquire by reading philosophers, shall be payed by the esteem, that we think to gain.
Labels: philosophy
<< Home