You (**)
call yourself a website and email developer, not a programmer.
I was talking about programmers.
Can you also be called a programmer?
Encode Decode wrote:
A thoughtful and concise post Otto. I know you were communicating
with Meno and not me but something caught my eye. I hope you don't mind
me interjecting.
Otto wrote:
»Inorganic systems have no sense (besides a possible metaphysical
one), but organic systems (systems of life) would not exist at all
without sense, so they need a sense.« **
**
Are you talking about external sense here?
I am also curious what you mean by inorganic systems. **
By inorganic systems I mean systems (and processes) of lifeless
nature.
Sense exists exclusively as the sense of the operations that use it,
i.e. only at the moment in which it is determined by operations, and neither
before nor after. Sense is therefore a product of the operations that
use it, and not a world quality that owes itself to a creation, a foundation,
an origin.
I speak here as a system theorist, if you will.
Yes (**)
. This process seems unstoppable. Nevertheless, it will stop because the
people necessary for it will die out (this process is already underway
- you can also call it intelligence destruction).
It is helpful not to think so much in terms of behaviorism. That does
not lead very far.
When I speak of signs, I mean everything that those who have signs and
thus meaning (see: semantics) or sense in their operations. Seen in this
way, everything is language, e.g. in the semiotic, in the purely linguistic,
in the strictly logical, in the mathematical sense.
Non-human creatures do this only on the semiotic level. They can, however,
understand a little of the other systems, but only if they can incorporate
it into their language system, i.e. assign it semiotically. Conversely,
humans can also have access to the system of the non-human creatures,
but not 100%.
CSS and HTML are only conditionally regarded as programming languages
in the programming community. Why ever. That is not my fault.
Bob wrote:
»Hegel definiert in seiner Enzyklopädie Dasein als
bestimmtes Sein (Qualität), als die Einheit des Seins und
des Nichts, in der die Unmittelbarkeit dieser Bestimmungen und damit
in ihrer Beziehung ihr Widerspruch verschwunden ist, eine Einheit,
in der sie nur noch Momente sind.
G.W.F. Hegel: Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften
I, stw, Frankfurt am Main 2003, § 89 Anm., S. 194.«
Dasein Wikipedia.
Translation:
Hegel defines Dasein in his Encyclopaedia as determinate being (quality),
as »the unity of being and nothingness, in which the immediacy
of these determinations and thus in their relation their contradiction
has disappeared, - a unity in which they are only moments«.
Because Dasein is subject to becoming, to arising and passing away,
and is to be regarded as something changeable, in Hegel's dialectic
logic it is the basic determination of every something. For him, a something
set in this way is what it is only through its boundary with respect
to others. However, he points out that he does not mean the quantitative,
but the qualitative limit.
I think that this is important because it isnt a particular
mode of being, except seen from the outside by others, but a Werdegang
(development) in someones life. That is, it can seem to be a particular
something from the outside, but speaking from the experience of Dasein,
it is part of a flowing process.
It shows that clarification is needed when using the word, and that,
taking Hegel and Heidegger as examples, it doesnt mean one thing
for all. **
Agreed.
________________________________________
A rather general note on the comparison between Dasein
and Sosein:
Dasein (from: da sein
= to be there) = being there, existence,
existentia.
Sosein (from: so sein =
to be so) = being so, essence,
essentia.
There is no Dasein without Sosein and no Sosein without Dasein. All
Sosein of something is itself also Dasein of something, and
all Dasein of something is itself also Sosein of something.
Only the something is not one and the same here. Example: the Dasein of
the tree at a place is itself a Sosein of the forest, because without
it the forest would be different; the Dasein of a limb at the tree is
a Sosein of the tree; the Dasein of a branch is a Sosein of the limb etc..
The Dasein of the one is always at the same time the Sosein of the other.
This series can be extended to both sides and also reversed.
Up to the 18th century, philosophy simply presupposed das Seiende
and das Sein and thus also das Dasein, thus never
questioned it, never investigated it, never explored it. Kant (1724-1804)
was the first philosopher who dealt with it when he founded anthropolgy.
Among others, Hamann (1730-1788), Herder (1744-1803), Goethe (1749-1832),
Schiller (1759-1805) and with an even sharper investigation Hegel (1770-1831)
followed. Then Hölderlin (1770-1843), Schelling (1775-1854), Schopenhauer
(1788-1860), Stirner (1806-1856), Kierkegaard (1813-1855), Marx (1818-1883),
Engels (1820-1895), Dilthey (1833-1922), Nietzsche (1844-1900), Husserl
(1859-1938), Spengler (1880-1936), Jaspers (1883-1969) and others should
also be mentioned in this regard. But it started really intensively with
Heidegger (1889-1976).
Selected quotes in my translated form:
This Seiende, which we ourselves ever are ..., we grasp terminologically
as the Dasein. - Martin Heidegger, 1927, § 6, p. 25.
Dasein, i.e. das Sein of (hu)man is ... the living (creature),
whose being is essentially determined by the ability to speak. -
Martin Heidegger, 1927, § 6, p. 25.
In Dasein there is an essential tendency towards closeness.
- Martin Heidegger, 1927, § 23, p. 105.
Dasein understands itself first and for the most part from its
world, and the co-existence (Mitdasein = Withdasein) of the others is
often encountered from what is present in the inner world. - Martin
Heidegger, 1927, § 26, p. 120.
Yes, for me JavaScript and its successors are programming languages.
Some Java or Perl programmers don't see it that way - maybe for arrogant
reasons.
Are you satisfied with your job?
The warmth of the fire symbolizes not only aggression or destruction
at all, but also and, as I find, even more well-being (think of e.g. warmth
at the campfire, Easter fire etc.), solutions and compounds by warmth/heat
(compare physics, chemistry: elementary particles, atoms, elements etc.),
warm-heartedness, love, also hot love, heat, eros and - not to forget
- light: without fire (light) there would be nothing to see at all, there
would be no sense of sight, no organs of sight (eyes).
Encode Decode wrote:
Kathrina, you make some good points that resonate with me.
Kathrina wrote:
»Since technology and subsequently economy, media and politics
have become frantic, it is hardly possible to keep track of exactly
who changes what, when, where and why. Also, many word meanings change
in the process. This can go so far that a neo-speak (Orwell
said newspeak, which he referred however to the communism)
results alone due to the technical development.« **
**
Are you using now as a reference point because things seem a lot crazier
now than they did five years ago? Going back five years - things seemed
a lot crazier then, as opposed to five years earlier than that...thus
evaluating each era compared to its last up until a point back in time.
It is true to say that among people there are those that romanticize
over an earlier time/era because they perceive that this time or one
earlier, even, is a worse time than the era they so wish was still operating
within the current time frame(whatever that may be). A lot of neo-speak
has not yet been officially recognized and a lot of it is temporary
in nature. Only a few new words will make it through to become part
of everyone's everyday lives.
Artifacts of getting older I am afraid - and possibly a feeling of
less relevance.
Kathrina wrote:
»If one assumes in any case that humanity is rather
dangerous than e.g. best, then one should (be allowed to) expect that
the word for it will either be changed in such a way that people understand
its meaning, how dangerous humanity is, or else the word
meaning will remain the old one (e.g. in the sense of Kant or Humboldt),
but then people will have to learn to turn this meaning of the word
around, because if people will not do this, they will not notice how
much they are lied to and deceived (we have enough examples of this
from history, especially the communist examples since 1917).«
**
**
Maybe the masses need a lie to believe in. **
It is about the one-sidedness of the evaluation. Only the one, eternal,
infinite evaluation may always be taken: it will go forward eternally.
This eternal progressivism is not only wrong - future history
will show it - but also treacherous.
The masses do not necessarily need a lie, but the rulers need a lie,
so that they can rule the masses, and that is why there are mass media
in particular, because the mass media make it look afterwards as if the
masses need a lie. The masses are addicted to the Man
(Heidegger), they are inauthentic (Heidegger), and the media
make sure on behalf of the rulers that it stays that way.
But how are the masses supposed to become what we call mankind
or - even more problematic - humanity? They (a)
are not allowed to do so, (b) are not capable
of doing so, because they are addicted to the Man, are inauthentic.
We humans can live by nature in a small group (comparable with apes
or wolves, lions and other pack animals), can live by culture even in
a city (a big, global, world city is already a problem) and so just in
a nation; but it is not possible in, especially not in the long run, to
live as a global community, as mankind, and certainly
not in a humane way, as a humanity.
Great Again wrote:
Look, what you (**)
have done:


*
But a really beautiful flower he has. Also a typical American house
to blow away (okay). And the trees are already green (light green).
What degree of latitude is the house on? **
**
Great Again wrote:
Why are the trees already green there (**)?
Here is not much green in the trees yet. **
**
Promethean wrote:
Fuckin photosynthesis or some shit how the fuck do i know? Do
I look like a fuckin botanist to you, pal? (Anmerkung:
So jemand schreibt so etwas in einem Philosophie-Webforum!
Und das ist dort an der Tagesordnung!) **
I am pretty sure that Great Again was asking about the latitude! **
**
I would also be interested in the latitude of that location. 
Let me guess: around 40 degrees north latitude.
|