>Look and listen again. The reason I rejected the appearance of "causality"
>because being non-existent - it doesn't have any appearance (geddit?)
>- anyway not as far as the inanimate objects that we have been talking
>Or for people either. Remember, you said "There is no appearance of the
>causality of my will," and then you said that this was "obviously" your
>There is no appearance of the cause of my will, for the simple reason that
>the whirring and bleepings of my cognitive processes are not visible or
>accessible to me. It could be argued however that the EFFECTS of my will
>observable in my actions. If I decide to move my hand I can observe the
>effects of that determination in my bodily movement.
You?re missing the point, because even if your cognitive processes were
visible or accessible to you, what has to appear is not your cognitive
processes, but the effectuation of your actions BY your cognitive processes.
The only appearances you would have would be your cognitive processes and
your subsequent actions - NOT the "determination" of one by the other. That
"determination" has no appearance, and it is precisely this appearance which
you need in order to maintain that effect has an appearance.
>You have yet to specify the exact appearance of evil, because as many
>philosophers of your bent have pointed out, it is one thing to say that
>something occurs, but quite another to say that it is good or bad. One is
>clearly visible, the other is clearly FELT, but not visible. You cannot see
>"bad" - what color is "bad"? What shape is "bad"? Is "bad" round or
>Ohhh! Sigh, really Anthony puleeeeese - I said in my recent message that
>human activities of which these words denote (abstract nouns, verbal nouns
>gerundial reifications or whatever you wish in your own fashion to describe
>them) are valued [judged] differently by different people and different
>groups of people. YOUR perception of evil is [patently] not mine - Saddam
>Hussein's conception of evil does not include gassing his own people, most
>people would not agree with him. There is no EXACT appearance of evil -
>there is no EXACT appearance of any abstract verbal noun, or those forms of
>human behaviour that attract those labels - each human or human group
>the behaviour in different ways.
Yes, and the point is that it is nothing but a "ticket," a "label," a
subjective figment like purpose and causality. Yet you accused religion of
being evil, when you admit that it is merely an unreal figment like purpose
>But you sure FEEL bad at the sight or thought of certain events.
>Are you claiming that feeling sad or annoyed or even outraged is an
>appearance of the sight or thought of certain events?
No, it accompanies the sight or thought of certain events. I don?t "see" sad
or annoyed or outraged. I see an event, and I then feel sad or annoyed or
outraged about it.
>What you see is an event, which you LABEL bad or good. So you would be
>imposing one of your subjective figments on religionists, which is
>the philosophical crime of which you accused religionists and
>transcendentalists with regard to purpose
>No, not quite - Not only are you getting confused again Anthony, you are
>holding back on the full story - one sees the event and the EFFECTS of
Where do you see "effect" rather than just another event? What you SEE is
one event and another, but that is not the same as the appearance of one AS
EFFECT of the other? It is not merely one event, or the other, or even their
simultaneity or subsequence, since one event can be subsequent to another
without being an effect of it. So what precisely is this appearance of
effect you allude to?
>Labeling human action good or bad is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT
>thing from trannies and religionists of imposing purposeful characteristics
>upon inanimate objects - in fact I am not even sure that all religionists
>would go that far, for many of them would consider it blasphemy to impute
>purpose to stones and mountains viewing this behaviour as the activity of
>pagans and devil worshippers. Where do you sand on this?
Religionists have had a long history of imposing purposeful characteristics
upon "inanimate objects," due to the influence of Aristotelian philosophy
upon Christian theology. As for me, I do not think that "inanimate objects"
have purposeful characteristics. But I also think that we encounter beings
in more ways than just as "objects."
>holistically, one makes a judgment by comparing the event and the effects
>against the standards of the particular society of which you are a member.
>Religionists and others of that ilk view events/effects differently and
>impose the judgements of the general religious community to which [being a
>free country and not a theocracy] they are entitled to do. In Saudi Arabia
>and the Yemen of course it is a different story and an event effect like
>adultery for example if observed by witnesses or the religious police, has
>the result or effect of decapitation or stoning to death - different
>as you say Anthony but this stroke is with a sword.
But take the effect itself, apart from any subsequent judgments about it.
What is the very appearance of an event AS EFFECT or RESULT or CONSEQUENCE,
besides being just an event?
>There is NO appearance of purpose in inanimate entities however much you
>protest that mountains pop up and down and stars play hide and seek and
>asteroids deliberately smash into each other - sorry my old sausage you are
>existing in a fantasy world more fanciful than the crew of Star Trek. BTW
>while we are on the subject of purpose in inanimate objects please explain:
>(1) The mechanics of mountain popping and star hiding and Pepperpot
>peek a boo How do they do it?
>(2) Why do they do it? What's in it for them? Are they part of some cosmic
See below concerning Heidegger.
>The word "evil" is simply a symbol made up of phonemes or alphabetic
>old boy, or perhaps you didn't realise. :-) The WORD "evil" only exists as
>label or tag for the observable activity or human behaviour which the
>Which means, yes that's right, IT HAS NO APPEARANCE, since it is only "a
>label or tag FOR the observable activity," not itself observable. You have
>just contradicted yourself in the very same post!
>No, no, no, no dear boy, I made it quite plain that the word evil is a
>representational symbol that humans use to transmit the notion of evil - it
>stands for and is used as a label to describe a form of human activity that
>by societal consensus is considered to be that activity observed as and
>pronounced as being evil.
Which means that religion is not REALLY evil, since evil does not really
exist, but is merely a subjective representational symbol or label in the
>Even apart from the whole Dasein-has-no-appearance thing, and just taking
>ordinary beings, he is saying that we do not only encounter them as
>objects, or even as modalities of appearing objects. We CAN encounter them
>that way, but it is not the only way, nor even the first or most
>I'm all ears - the floor is yours. What is this way that we encounter
>these beings and what do you mean when you employ the word encounter
>exactly please? This looks as if it could be a juicy plum to pick. :-)
It?s all in sections 13 and 15 of SuZ - a total of about only 12 pages, not
a long assignment. He basically says that we first encounter beings purely
as good for this, good for that - in their equipmentality (their suitability
as equipment FOR something). Only by wrenching beings from their primary
equipmentality do they then appear as individual things or objects "apart"
from what they are for. That?s a very basic summary - you should read those
sections again. Like I said, they are short.
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---