Timing and Perception is Everything
 

Philosophy is such a confusing field. When I look at various philosophers one says this is the way things might be/are based on this perception then along comes another one and he says "No, No, No. This happens before that so this is the way that it is". I just lately discovered that Heidegger is saying that Western civilization and Plato got it all wrong and now there's Hume with his theory of causality: that our beliefs about cause and effect depend on sentiment, custom and habit, and not upon reason, nor upon abstract, timeless, general Laws of Nature. (theory of causality definition from wiki). So what came first? The chicken or the egg? Seems like philosophy points to the egg first then another philosopher points at the chicken then another philosopher comes along and we're all back to the egg. I'm starting to think they all get only a part of it right. They have this totalitarian approach that each one has to get everything right but the more we learn the more we find out there's more variables than we can keep track of and that psychology/sociology seems to impact everything and philosophers in particular.

Anyways, can anyone explain the main thrust of Heidegger's argument to me?

Re: Timing and Perception is Everything
 

[ QUOTE ]
They have this totalitarian approach that each one has to get everything right but the more we learn the more we find out there's more variables than we can keep track of and that psychology/sociology seems to impact everything and philosophers in particular.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. To me, the philosophers that matter are the ones that acknowledge the unknown.

Oh and your post is an excellent argument against religious dogmatism.

Re: Timing and Perception is Everything
 

Which of Heidegger's arguments?

Hegel would be a good start in terms of the "chicken/egg" problem. His idea of the dialectic explains how these questions may be resolved.

Sadly, Hegel and Heidegger, while two of the most brilliant philosophers ever, are also two of the hardest to read. They aren't easy to summarize either, and I think there's always something lost in translation.

Re: Timing and Perception is Everything
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They have this totalitarian approach that each one has to get everything right but the more we learn the more we find out there's more variables than we can keep track of and that psychology/sociology seems to impact everything and philosophers in particular.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.cooltownstudios.com/images/chicken-egg.jpg

Good point. To me, the philosophers that matter are the ones that acknowledge the unknown.

Oh and your post is an excellent argument against religious dogmatism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Name a few that acknowledge the unknown I might want to read up on them.

Re: Timing and Perception is Everything
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They have this totalitarian approach that each one has to get everything right but the more we learn the more we find out there's more variables than we can keep track of and that psychology/sociology seems to impact everything and philosophers in particular.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.cooltownstudios.com/images/chicken-egg.jpg

Good point. To me, the philosophers that matter are the ones that acknowledge the unknown.

Oh and your post is an excellent argument against religious dogmatism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Name a few that acknowledge the unknown I might want to read up on them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you need the known unknowns, the unknown unknowns or the unknown knowns?

luckyme

Re: Timing and Perception is Everything
 

very funny. Just the prominent names please. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Timing and Perception is Everything
 

You could try Nietzsche, Hume, and Kierkegaard on the subject. Is my bias too obvious? There are oodles of contemporary philosophers with good stuff. Maybe Philo can make some recommendations?

And you could look at Voltaire, Locke, maybe Dewey and Popper... Yeesh, I'm starting to sound like an existentialist.