Re: The Meaning of Ontology (Heidegger & Sartre) Video

Epistemology comes after one does fundamental ontology. Epistemology was conceived and done within a scientific materialist milieu, and Heidegger's project was designed to NOT be epistemological in character.

Save & Share:

BrianTheMusicMan: I can't see why you would say that Heidegger merely "bettered on Kant". Heidegger did much, much more - he completely transformed the philosophical tradition, especially the ignorant projects of people like Kant. Also, there is much more to Heidegger than Being and Time; his later work is extremely insightful.

directspirit: Yes, Heidegger did a lot, you're right. (Although I would call Kant's project ignorant.) H. did transform the tradition; this is especially apparent if you know that tradition up to Heidegger. But if you see exactly how Whitehead and Ricoeur went far beyond even the latter Heidegger, it's easier to see how close Heidegger and Kant really are. But you're right, Heidegger did transform. And Heidegger's critique of Whitehead would have been he was too ontical (although I don't agree w/ H. there.)

directspirit: CORRECTION: I *wouldn't* call Kant's project ignorant!!

paradirob: Is 'Professoranton' Corey? Your description of Being and Time was correct. In another video you made allusions to Corey quitting and that you wanted him to keep going. I subscribed to your account and noticed that one of your favorite videos is of UG in Mill Valley, in 1986. What do you like about this UG video? Are you from Mill Valley or the North Bay Area? The question: 'what comes first, epistemology or ontology,' sounds like: 'what's better, continental philosophy or the British tradition?'

directspirit: You're right about ontology/epist. question. The British tradition just doesn't go for phenom. Yes, Corey (professoranton) was thinking of stopping his project (he's doing this for a book he's writing) b/c it wasn't as productive as he hoped. (I think he's beyond most of the YT's in our circles, but he would't claim that's why). Narayana Moorty was one of my philosophy profs 20 years ago at Monterey Peninsula College--a good friend of UG's. I like UG b/c he's a great foil. (MORE)

directspirit: CONTINUED: UG is so right about so many things, but he's (he was) also so wrong. When I read him or listen to him, I clearly see the error of a (denuded) Cartesian ontology which is the dominant ontology of our day. Listening to him allows me to easily form process ontological arguments. It's really amazing. What's your point of view? Are you familiar with UG? Aloha and thanks for subscribing.

paradirob: Yes. Moorty was my logic tutor when I was going to SJSU. I met UG at Moorty's house. About Corey writing a book: It really is difficult to limit the scope of one's theme. He sounds like an expert in many areas of thought and tells it like it is. I listened to a about 7 of your latest videos and was very impressed by your subtle handling of very deep philosophical issues. You seem to have a real 'ready-at-hand' feel for what you are talking about. My view regarding epistemology versus ontology..

paradirob: ..I think your explanation says it all. However, it still is kind of fun to debate which comes first. Corey seems to think it's ontology and Pyrrho sticks with epistemology. I think you are right in suggesting that it is a pseudo-problem, but it is still interesting to hear different peoples' opinions. Dennett has come right out flatly denying that there is a 'phenomenology.' His statement is: 'there is no phenomenology.' It sort of reminds me of Sartre's statement: 'there is no human nature.'

directspirit: Thank-you for the compliment. Very interesting that you met UG. Was it anything special or just like meeting any other (intelligent) person? At some point where our business is settled, I'll write a book (process theology) and I'll read Moorty's new book on UG then. Have you read it? Yes, the Epist-Ontol. debate comes down to whether you think behavior/comportment is fundamental, or knowledge of behavior/comportment is fundamental. Will you put up some videos on your channel? Aloha

f1ghtclub2k3: no mention of Nietzsche...why>? is there any being behind doing? what we think we know is already flawed since language and conciousness arose symbiotically...which is then dependent upon culture, linguistic limitations to concepts and onward...no absolutes, no causality just informational errors needed to survive...errors which rise from necessity...the essence of nature is chaos, flux,..to know somehting now is temporal in the time line of the universe...human beings are on another time scale.

directspirit: I'm not sure what to make of your comment. On my view there's only "doing" and no "being." The fundamental constituents of the universe are in active process, not static being. I'd say what we know is interpreted rather than flawed. I'd say consciousness arose before language. E.g., ancient hominids were conscious, but didn't have language. Thanks for the comment. Oh, what do you mean by "no causality?" Aloha

Author: directspirit; Uploaded: Oct 20, 2009; Duration: 7:49; Views: 120

Tags: ontology  phenomenology  existentialism  philosophy  humanity  animality  existence  dasein  being-for-itself  reeds rains republic renault real madrid reuters real radio reed recipes remembrance day reiss