wtf, nobody told me that Heidegger actually liked Plato, especially Plato's Parmenidesthis is a great essay to introduce us to Heidegger's Plato: https://philarchive.org/archive/BACAOAa handful but nonexhaustive selection of key points at the end: >The main point of these last hypotheses is that if there is unity, if reality is one, then this unity of reality both comprises all things and is no thing. >If there is no unity, if reality is not unified, then there is no manifold reality at all but only nothing. >Heidegger interprets: Being itself, insofar as it unifies reality and renders beings possible, is itself no being at all, but rather intimately characterized by nothingness [Nichtigkeit].>As we already know from Heidegger: Being is the Nothing [Nichts], the background which makes the Something possible in the first place.>Heidegger concludes his seminar with the following words:>Maximal truth has been attained when appearance and Non-being have been included within truth and Being. The dialogue literally leads to Nothing [Nichts]. . . . Thereby the question of Being has been transformed, everything is now otherwise. The on is both hen and polla, and it is hen, insofar as it is polla and vice versa. The One and the Many are only insofar as they are in themselves negative [nichtig].the last sentence is a bit confusing though... dont the One and the Many stand as having definitions in their own? i don't think they need to be defined as not the other, One as not Many and the Many as not One.
Heidegger was the usual intellectual produced by the atheist enlightenment who became nazi and couldn't resist giving away free orgasms to a jewess
>>23309375Jewish females are an upgrade from white roasties anon
>>23309372>Maximal truth has been attained when appearance and Non-being have been included within truth and Being.Absolutely.
>>23309372>the last sentence is a bit confusing though... dont the One and the Many stand as having definitions in their own? i don't think they need to be defined as not the other, One as not Many and the Many as not One.You're not getting it. It's all there in what you posted. Read it again.
>>23309550I was going to point out the same, but I think OP grasps that and is questioning why Heidegger takes them that way instead of how they're taken in the Parmenides. Do I have that right, OP?
>>23309628Heidegger talks about oblivion in that people aren't able to remember. They have no being because they don't remember.Chronic stress causes damage to the hippocampus. That's the condition of unity and therefore non-being.
>>23309628>>23309800"Oblivion is a concealment that withdraws what is essential and alienates man from himself i.e. from the possibility of dwelling throughout his own essence."
>>23309550I’ve read it again and I’m still not sure what it’s saying or what is meant by the negative. I mean, in Plato’s Sophist, the negative is re-spun as a positive, only of a different kind. But here it’s like we have difference without a positive which makes no sense, especially against the backdrop of Sophist (non-being and the status of false statements).
>>23311494He's taking it as these, which you quoted above:>Heidegger interprets: Being itself, insofar as it unifies reality and renders beings possible, is itself no being at all, but rather intimately characterized by nothingness [Nichtigkeit].>As we already know from Heidegger: Being is the Nothing [Nichts], the background which makes the Something possible in the first place.So the One and Many, taken as "nichtig", i.e., the "nichtigkeit" against which everything else is intelligible. Definitely not a philologically sound or precise interpretation, and there's some straining to get at the point, but it's pointing to that in the light of which makes beings intelligible, but which, as such, cannot be beings.
>>23309372Whitehead once said that Western Philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato, but it is in fact much more accurate to say that Western Philosophy is a series of people getting filtered by Plato.Absolute state.
What is the best and least preachy Heidegger bio?
>>23311549Introduction-type books are also welcome.
>>23311554For that, maybe Thomas Sheehan's Making Sense of Heidegger. Very clear, tries to spell out everything in reference to everything else he wrote, shows the consistent threads and clarifies what gets dropped and altered.
>>23311566Thanks. Which philosophers would you say are the absolute must-reads before you even try to tackle Heidegger? Aside from the Greeks and Nietzsche, I mean.
>>23311494>>23311522>but it's pointing to that in the light of which makes beings intelligible, but which, as such, cannot be beings.This is it. Unity is forcibly a decay into self-alienation.
>>23311574Sticking with the Greeks and Nietzsche is fine for now. Kant and Hegel both loom large, but they're a lot to ask of someone to read, unless you're looking to try Heidegger's book Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics on the First Critique. Some stuff, like the Davos dispute, won't make much sense unless you've read the three Critiques.
>>23311613>KantIs a Chinaman.>NietzscheIs Kantian even though he could never admit it.>HegelGood concepts but is otherwise blind because he believes in providence.>HeideggerStands on his own.
Heidegger is the very epitome of continental pseudo-philosophical wankery, crafting up words for no reason to incoherently describe vague concepts to make the reader think the writer knows something the reader doesn't and it's the reader's fault he doesn't understandStart and end with the Greeks, specifically Plato. And he didn't need to craft a shitton of words of vague meaning for no reason, his message is clear and will lead you out of the cave
>>23311629You have to already be extremely intelligent and slightly psychopathic to understand Heidegger. Everything he preaches is about becoming an individual far removed from the lies of society. And that includes the lies that your parents told you that you can't even admit come from them because you don't even know they're lies and neither did they.Heidegger catapults you out of the cave. He is Plato on steroids.
This is probably an extremely stupid question, but as someone who barely knows any philosophy, when I read stuff like this my first reaction is: supposing there is "only nothing", how is it you can post about this fact on 4chan.org? Is it possible to explain this in simple terms?
>>23311640>Is it possible to explain this in simple terms?You have to be towards death first. You need to act or they're only words. Once you encounter yourself outside you will see what isn't yourself.
>>23311640Following up on this - could it be that everything is actually somehow a negation of something? In Plato's allegory of the cave, the images seen by those in the cave are shadows which obviously are just the lack of light. Is life itself somehow also a lack? But a lack of what? God? But then isn't that something? To see a shadow there has to be some contrast, some light existing at the edge.
>>23311646>You have to be towards death first.How do you accomplish that?
>>23311640Well, to slow down, he doesn't quite say that. In OP, we have a kind of summary from a scholar of material published in Germany that hasn't been published in English yet, and part of his summary is that Heidegger apparently makes a qualified argument:>IF there is no unity, IF reality is not unified, THEN there is no manifold reality at all but only nothing.And this itself looks like just an alternative worked out to a prior point:>The main point of these last hypotheses is that if there is unity, if reality is one, then this unity of reality both comprises all things and is no thing.So "only nothing" is just a spelled out alternative to this.There is a lecture, often mocked and hard to understand, What Is Metaphysics?, from 1929 that (in)famously discusses nothingness, but Heidegger's not talking so much about a total lack of existence or void, but something more like unintelligibility.
>>23311655Resolute anticipatory being towards death. You seek it out.
>>23311638eh not really. you see, I still remember everything Plato conveyed and Platonism feels true as if it was naturally ingrained in us. Anamnesis - "only reminding" ourselves of what we instinctually already knew "at birth" plus Plato is cool because there's mysticism contained within his philosophy and the immortal soul (anamnesis stems from this)meanwhile I already forgot what Heidegger really meant by Dasein and shit. it feels like an intellectual coward's cop out not willing to say more straightforwardly what he believes in, OR not willing to admit he doesn't believe, in anything
Why was Heidegger so into poetry?
>>23311655>>23311662Anticipatory resoluteness. You decisively seek out yourself.>>23311663>Anamnesis - "only reminding" ourselves of what we instinctually already knew "at birth" plus Plato is cool because there's mysticism contained within his philosophy and the immortal soul (anamnesis stems from this)That's bullshit narcissism. It's your parents that formed you and women today are stupid as fuck. Your mother is likely a dumb feminist that castrated you without you even knowing.
>>23311661Thank you, that is very helpful. It seems that trying to casually glean anything of Heidegger on a forum like this is close to futile. I'll probably have to just read him directly if I want to understand anything.
>>23311661>>23311683>unintelligibilityYes, because once you are truly yourself then you will find yourself nowhere in others.Nietzsche said something similar about loving your enemies because fighting them reveals things about yourself.
>>23311683Even that's hard. It took me a few years for Heidegger to start making any kind of good sense to me, even the second lit practically disagrees with each other almost to a book on fundamental things. I will say, the 20s lecture courses are very helpful and better to go through than Being and Time, but I already had a background in Greek beforehand, and he's pretty Greek heavy.
>>23311693His later books are essential.
>>23311693>>23311702Specifically The Question Concerning Technology.
>>23311693How did he become such a big deal if he's such an opaque thinker? Or did he become so big exactly because you can read anything into him or use it to demonstrate anything you want in a philosophical-sounding language, kinda like Freud or Marx?
>>23311711>opaque thinkerWho ever said that?
>>23311711>>23311717His tenets are very clear.>You must unconceal the concealed>You must overcome the fear of death>You must be authentic towards potentiality and not towards the lies you were told>You must not put yourself in reserve >Technology is dangerous because it decays man and leads towards him putting himself in reserve.This is all off the top of my head from knowing Heidegger intimately.
>>23311717>Even that's hard. It took me a few years for Heidegger to start making any kind of good sense to me, even the second lit practically disagrees with each other almost to a book on fundamental things.>even the second lit practically disagrees with each other almost to a book on fundamental things.
>>23311711We're looking at it in a skewed way since outside of Freiburg and Marburg he was known primarily for Being and Time, but all the intense excitement around him was for his lectures on Aristotle. For a lot of auditors of his courses, he made dead traditional textbook figures come alive and have sudden fresh relevance through this new hermeneutical phenomenological approach. And those courses are very exciting, way more clear than B&T, and you're also seeing him develop the ideas of B&T and work them out in such a way as to see how they're not arbitrary word salad, for example, his development of his use of Dasein out of Aristotle's De Anima. That's also why I suggest the lecture courses, caveats aside re: Greek.
>>23311740>his development of his use of Dasein out of Aristotle's De AnimaThat wasn't clear to you before?
>>23311729Ignore this loon, this Heidegger distorted through culture wars bs. Heidegger, whether to his credit or discredit, was not a humanist and insists his analysis of das man isn't supposed to be about moral authenticity; reading the lectures shows it comes from his reading of Aristotle's ousia and observing how it means "being" and "one’s own property" as a Greek word.
>>23311729>His tenets are very clear.>You must unconceal the concealedAah, so it's like that, huh. I understand everything now.
>>23311746Have you not read The Essence of Truth?
>>23311750Yeah, in its various lecture and essay forms. Enough bullshitting.
>>23311749Untruth as concealing.>>23311751You're returning to the cave because the truth makes you uncomfortable. It's a very natural stage.
>>23311754>You're returning to the cave because the truth makes you uncomfortable. It's a very natural stage.
>>23311751>>23311754 (1) The situation of human beings in the cave; (2) the failed liberation within the cave; (3) the genuine liberation outside the cave; (4) the return of the liberated philosopher into the cave as a liberator. That's how it's supposed to be and if it worked we wouldn't currently have have hacks in academia.But the truth is not welcomed today. The truth is not profitable because the cattle need to be stupid to be milked.
>>23309372>Being itself, insofar as it unifies reality and renders beings possible, is itself no being at all, but rather intimately characterized by nothingnessAoristos Dyas. Not the Indefinite Dyad, the pre-/over & beyond-the-horizon[al] Dyad, Finitude & Infinity. And that even is bounded by the Apeiron, and ultimately The One. EIDOS and APODEXIS are etymologically relating to vision and availability/presence. The ALETHIC is APODEXIC but not immediately so in mutibility/finitude/appearance; the holos of beings [khora] and their essence in particular [hypokeimenon] has to be uncovered, UNEARTHED-- you can lead a horse to water but it determining the relection of the moon in the water to ultimately be sourced in & by the Sun is up to the ungulate, so to speak. There were - and are - unwritten teachings of necessity (Ananke) as a matter of course.
>>23311663>not willing to say more straightforwardly what he believes in, OR not willing to admit he doesn't believe, in anythingSpirit and Presence are both integral and intensive potential until Actualized. Picrel is the horror and real political absolute friend-enemy distinction of and in philosophy. The awake and alive in spirit have to do everything they can to both come to themselves (enter into their own 'authenticity') and find each other, if just for self-preservation against Them. It's worse than They Live (1988.
>>23311754>Untruth as concealing.Not just concealment (camouflage, passive) but artificially sustained (pro)active Obstruction of the Source and what shows-forth otherwise of its own accord freely, the apodictic
>>23311811Indeed.
>>23311522>>23311578idk goys, it seems like it's not a concrete, delineated thing maybe, because it can't be such a thing. but it's not a pure nothing either lol. it's something a little bit more hazy and... unlimited... isn't it?is... fuck. is this the fucking indefinite dyad here? the one and the many as defined only as negations of each other, not as positive in itself?
Parmenides was right, Heidegger makes no sense
>>23309372>Plato, however, loses sight of this fundamentally temporal event-character of reality and approaches Being from the viewpoint of ideallyaccomplished present-ness and accessibility, ousia. The model of present-ness or being-ness is basically, for Plato, the ideal and essential whatness of a thing’s presence—itsform or “look” (idea, eidos)—which precisely in its ideality is more present and accessiblethan the concrete reality of incomplete,temporal, and changing particular things.3 Thisideal of perfect beingness has since haunted Western metaphysics up to what Nietzschecalls his “inverted Platonism.”Establishing APODICITY - the centrality of particulars in their own HOLOS - was the end, to get one over on Sophistry, establishing the seams of necessity - Ananke, the Given - and securing it for what we know call science against them and interpolations of doxa that properly belong to religion if anywhere at all. ... the One isn't 'in being' but the apoDEIxic ground from & by which it EMANATES or to 'take place' and enters into it, as an 'event', arrival-to-availability The rest is adequately obviated and accounted for by Hegel as regards Being and beings, Infinite(s) and Finite(s); Being is the illumination of the One, and illumination is itself a shadow of Light, not Light as such-- in extension with mass & magnitude et. al. there is danger in reifying nullities like time and worse, space.
does anyone know the quote from some philosopher that said that philosophies tell you more about the author's psychological issues than anything, for example schopenhauer was an incel and pessimist, nietzche was coping with being chronically ill etc
>>23312141probably Nietzsche himself lol
>>23309372>Heidegger also argues that the account of the temporal unity of plurality formulated inthe Parmenides is even more radical than the solution to the question of Un-beingattained in the SophistThere is no Time in the center of the hour glass, and no magnetism at the center of a magnet, strictly speaking, rather dielectric counterspace The 'participation', 'mixing', and/or commensurability of the elements in question is passed through, a gate hence Hekate's triplex faced/faceted Titaness of Magick status as The Gatekeeper; or Thrice Great Hermes/Athena, take your pick >"... insofar as they are themselves negative."Birth, not death is the opposite of Life, temporally-- Metempsychosis is predicated on being 'twice born' like Dionysus in this life to fully, absolutely negate the negation, mortal ekstasis to immortal entasis.>n Heidegger’s reading, the“instant” is not within time, but rather manifests the essence of the temporality of Beingas such: “As to the exaiphnēs, we say it is time itself. Time is not eternity, but rather theinstant [Augenblick].”>“Being is metabolē [transition / overturning], metabolē is exaiphnēs [instant].”Being's forgetfulness of itself in-itself furnishes determinate beings with their being(s) as such in extension/mutibility/becoming with their own holos & ousia. The affair of recollection and theurgy is surmounting such temporally, Being remains beholden to its antipode under the aegis of the Aoristas Dyas, and it upon the Apeiron, that upon the Monad Being's there (and here) as the apodictic ground to be unearthed by Mind at the heart of all things; it sleeps so we can awake.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlZUcuCyWSYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNN3VhcRfjM
>>23312358>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlZUcuCyWSYstop posting this fat pseud retard everywhere
>>23312358https://www.academia.edu/84692953/Can_time_dilate_or_contracthttps://www.academia.edu/102532463/Rate_of_Change_Instantaneous_Rate_of_Changehttps://www.academia.edu/45486033/What_is_timeClocks measure time units of matter in motion. There is no such thing as the instant for an instant has no magnitude. Ken is wrong about Physics as too Heidegger and Damascius and everyone else including Plato who has failed to understand what is number. https://www.academia.edu/105399167/The_Ultimate_Book_of_Numbers
>>23312527So what is number?
>>23309372>>23311494>>23311522>>23311863>Backman argues for the latter, seeing Heidegger's thought as beginning with his early engagement with the metaphysical (in Heidegger's sense) account of Being as exclusively the indeterminate and most universal unity that is the pure, meaningful presence of a being as originally articulated by Parmenides. In this regard, Being is solely and exclusively tied to beings, i.e., it is the beingness of beings. Being as the meaningful presence of a being admits of no division or difference and what is outside of or different to being as meaningful presence is simply nothing.
>>23312649Maybe if you bothered to read, you would have known a non-circular definition of number, but /lit/ never reads, utterly incapable of understanding why "a number is a name given to a measure that defines a ratio of magnitudes" that exists independently of any mind and soul.
Doesn't the Beingness of beings imply a structure that corresponds to Beingness? That there is a structure of disclosure, or a structure that is disclosed. I know that Heidegger equates Parmenides' 'Being of beings' with Kant's problem of synthetic a priori judgments, which is the problem of how the conditions of experience are themselves possessed of rules which we can apply synthetically to a priori statements
>>23312738>/lit/ never reads my super esoteric chicken scratch stuff!!! dude are you for real
I think Heidegger was Spengler’s classroom philosopher exactly. Almost purely romantic rhetoric and intellectual masturbation. I really believe that.
>>23312752Never underestimate how many mentally ill automatons post on an anonymous image board
>>23312752see >>23312527Those who ask incredibly lazy questions that is already been answered in the material linked to beforehand are incredibly lazy and inept as is the nature of those who refuses to grasp what they critique. Meanwhile, Ken Wheeler has no model of physics and already failed to grasp time.
>>23312764You're at the same level as Ken Wheeler in my eyes because you are completely and utterly lacking in self-awareness
>>23312765And Heidegger and everyone else cannot grasp that the notion of time cannot exist without matter in constant motion, yourself included. Time is not an instant.
>>23312768You have no idea what Heidegger is talking about lol.
>>23312755that's goofy because middle-late Heidegger dovetails so well with Spengler with the philosophy of the event, Da-Sein (not Dasein), etc., that it's not even funny.
>>23312771Time doesn't exist within the One (First Hypostasis (Plotinian)) nor the One-Many (Second Hypostasis) but in the One and Many (Third Hypostasis) that is the All-Soul. There are many things prior to Time, but all of what Heideggerians ever surmount to is a shifting of ill formed concepts around in different sequential ordering and calling it a day.
>>23312768Clock time is a contrived arbitrary measure of time in regularity with respect to something, which is fine when it's for this or that purpose, but it's an assumption merely asserted to presume it exhausts what time "really" is, as if basic past, present, and future weren't the ordinary experience of it.
>>23312780How can time *only* exist with One and Many if One and Many refers to nothing? Is time characterized by nothingness?
>>23312779From Heidegger’s perspective only it does. The very first chapter of the second volume of decline dismisses Heidegger entirely.
>>23312781Here's two sentences from that link you refused to bother to read https://www.academia.edu/45486033/What_is_time>Time is the concept that describes the occurrence of an event and distinguishes the event from all other events that do not occur simultaneously or concurrently. A time measuring device measures intervals defined in terms of time units.Time units are measures of motive distance over the same distance using a material reference (the Earth) and utilizing the constant cyclical motion, see https://www.academia.edu/84692953/Can_time_dilate_or_contract for more.>>23312786The "One and Many" is the realm of the Psyche. Don't you know what brings about Motion and Change begins with the Soul? Of course, Time is NOT characterized by "nothingness".
>>23311574To add to what I said at >>23311613, there are a handful of books that directly inform Heidegger's peculiar approach, though besides Husserl, he doesn't discuss them much:Franz Brentano - On the Several Senses of Being in AristotleEdmund Husserl - Logical Investigations, Philosophy as Strict ScienceMaurice Blondel - L'ActionFelix Ravaisson - Of HabitThe last two especially make certain elements of his discussions of the Nothing and tool-thinking make a bit more sense.
>>23312814Typical non-address. "If I repeat myself, I'll force you to accept it!" Horseshit. Time used to be measured by transitions from day to night to day, the changing of seasons, the apparent passage of astronomical phenomena in the sky, and very basic "before" and "after".And I've read the foundational works of modern science from Descartes to Einstein, spare me the chatter.
>>23312781No one experiences time as constituents of a timeline of any sort, all notions of a timeline is what comes after measure of time. Without that measure, change has no real meaning.>>23312822Change is meaningless without matter in constant motion, as well as a subject that mreasures. Time is not used to measure, Time Units are used to measure Change in an objective sense. There is no time in matter without motion, motion without matter, and neither matter nor motion. Time exists when there is matter and constant motion. Non-constant motion cannot be accurately used to form a time unit of material-motive distance over material distance. Space as "Distance" is more Primal than Time.Descartes through Einstein have never grasped Time, neither did the Greeks.
>>23312833False, your autism prevents you from understanding anyone else's experiences. Your curt dismissal apropos of anything of all natural philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians from the 16th century on in favor of some dullard repeating them as if his insight were fresh and new means you can be safely dismissed.
>>23312923>your autism prevents you from understanding anyone else's experiencesExperience is effectuated change upon the soul as memory, whereby memory is never not changing even if relived, there is no Platonic Form of memory, it is a Psychic form, as too, Time and Love and Strife and various other things that are experienced are not the Form of that thing in the undescended Being prior to the posterior experience of instantiations of particular enmattered forms of these things. Anything that changes is not a Platonic Form even if it can be Noetically, precisely defined in its true essence.
>>23312950Another non-response. Yawn.
>>23312957You conflate irreducibility as complexity, as does every modern fool that tries to de-Platonize the Platonic Forms to Nought, which by the way, there is no "Form of Nothing" in any tier of reality. Irreducible Simplexity is beyond experiential complexity yet explains complexity without any vain appeals to axiomatic thinking. Heidegger understands nothing of any significance on the nature of Plato's Parmenides, he is a closet Aristotelian that cannot grasp the hyperousia.
>>23311863They steal from each other. It's a master slave dialectic and none is free.
>>23311863>>23313015Freedom doesn't exist when there is self-alienation. That's why in the cave everyone is a slave.
>>23312979>>23312957>>23312950>>23312923>>23312833>>23312822>>23312817>>23312814>>23312804>>23312786>>23312781>>23312780>>23312779>>23312771>>23312768>>23312765>>23312764>>23312762>>23312755>>23312752>>23312751>>23312738>>23312651>>23312649>>23312527>>23312500>>23312358>>23312277>>23312141>>23311984>>23311878Time is the Horizon of Being and Being is only possible outside the cave. Everything else is just part of the plan - part of the unity - and everyone that is part of the unity is self-alienated>If there is no unity, if reality is not unified, then there is no manifold reality at all but only nothing. But this comes at the cost of Being.
>>23313036It's Nothing that allows for Being.
>>23313036>>If there is no unity, if reality is not unified, then there is no manifold reality at all but only nothing. >But this comes at the cost of Being.Just to clarify - it's unity that destroys Being and thus Time itself. Therefore the cave is not a computer simulation but an actual simulation created by men.
>>23312979Meds, now.>which by the way, there is no "Form of Nothing" in any tier of realityYou've evidently never read the Sophist. Your philosophy LARP is embarrassing.>>23313036You also don't understand the cave image, cave dweller.
>>23313071Every culture has a different cave. I've seen many caves and therefore am a master of reality.More so because I see that love comes from within. Self-alienation is not worth all the fake love the world can give.
>>23313086Evidence that you've never left the cave: anyone who leaves doesn't have to visit other caves to know beforehand that all caves will be alike, only the statues dragged before the fire sometimes differ. All you're doing is competing with other cave dwellers over who can call out the shadows "accurately" and in what order they'll appear.
>>23313106 No, I'm out. But there's someone still in that I want to get out so I have to return.
>>23313106>only the statues dragged before the fire sometimes differI've seen them from outside. I know the order; there is no competition.You prove this to someone by predicting the future but they still don't believe you. They attribute it to magic or to the demonic. That's Christianity for you.
>>23313071"Nothing" isn't reifiable tangibly nor intangibly as an instantiation"Nothing" isn't attributive"Nothing" Self-Contradicts itself"Nothing" doesn't exist independently from those that insists "Nothing" is a Something"Infinity" isn't reifiable tangibly nor intangibly as an instantiation"Infinity" isn't attributive"Infinity" Self-Contradicts itself"Infinity" doesn't exist independently from those that insists "Infinity" is a SomethingVoid, Indefinite(apeiros, contextually within a finite system that is finitely extended or diminished indefinitely), Totality and many other Perfect Platonic Forms however exists independently from any Intellects, Souls, and especially moronic Brains that can't grasp these things and worships Chaos.
>>23313285This is tilting at windmills, since you refuse to actually pay attention to what anyone's talking about in favor of raving about what you want everyone to be talking about. You killed a thread with shitposting all so you could masturbate loudly, non-productively convincing no one of anything you were hoping. Turn your head back to cave wall, retard.
>>23313322Shitposting? Even Heidegger had noted the problem of speaking of nothing as a something leads to self contradiction and so leads to an ineffable state, but you on the other hand insist Plato treated Non-Being as well as Nothing to being something just because it is entertained in Sophist and Parmenides dialogues, but just because Plato had made such linguistic deductions of an Not/Non-Being IS doesn't mean he actually believes in it, it is easily refuted via reductio ad absurdum. Propositional logic or Axioms are not Platonic Ideas.
>>23313368>just because plato said it in two dialogues doesn't mean he believes itIt's amazing how much shit Straussians get considering the ESL wannabe Neo-neoplatonist competition arbitrarily interpreting the dialogues to say what they want.
>>23313411Maybe that's because they specifically deserved to be shit on for failing to grasp even the core philosophy of physics, likewise, also failed to grasp that Plotinus is the most Platonic Platonist to have ever existed.
>>23313435That's why you're still in the cave, ngmi.
>>23313441You will never grasp Damascius
>>23313484Having read his commentaries on Philebus and Phaedo, and his Life of Isidore, I'm pretty confident in my grasp of him. It's plainer to me that you don't get him, e.g., everything one would want to know about where he stands with respect to his predecessors and their positions is contained in the Life of Isidore. But you're so taken with an immoderate mysticism, it'll go right past you, as he intended.
>>23313542>>23313484>>23313441>>23313435>>23313411>>23313368>>23313322>>23313285Autists getting filtered.
>>23313542is that all you've read of him? If so, you will never grasp what is the undetermined one. Also, my cave's better than yours.
>>23313576The filter doesn't exist, it's just ever shifting goalposts in a dead thread, for nobody has refuted the central point. Hope you had fun.
>>23313609>refuted the central pointYou just don't understand anything.
>>23313616Yet again a vain assertion without any substance. You are as predictable as ever.
>>23313639The error you're making is trying to get a Greek explanation for everything as if Heidegger is just a banal collector and vomit of the past. He is a modernist through and through and completely original.
>>23313676Yes he is original because he is wrong in his own special ways, what better to ask of anyone to learn from their mistakes.
>>23313700>he is wrong in his own special waysNow you're just being a Greek dick sucker. It's the Greeks that were wrong and the Jews even more so. Yet the South and East Asians are even more in the dark.
>>23313576You satisfied that you're dragged into bickering with the retard too?>>23313593Damascius thought types like Proclus and Iamblicus were chumps, just as Marinus did in his Life of Proclus, cope.
>>23313715There's nothing wrong with being wrong, it's how we can be "less wrong".>>23313727Cope? Damascius is right about them, fuck Iamblichus and Proclus, but fuck Damascius too. One may understand le Greeks and le Germans yet not grasp anything better and that's okay, just be extremely loud and verbose about it so that people know to avoid such chattering. Heidegger isn't worth my time studying ultimately, likewise all the other closeted Aristotelians the D*tches love to jelq to.
>>23313907
>>23313918
>>23311800It’s cool to see another seeing the parallels between Heidegger and Gurdjieff. They’re a truly unique but rich pair for comparison. Gurdjieff coming from the angle of the world’s esotericism and spiritual teachings (particularly those of the East and Central Asia, like yogism and Sufism), and Heidegger with a rich grounding in the Western philosophical tradition, all the way back from the Presocratics to the German idealists to more modern figures like Nietzsche then Husserl and phenomenology/existentialism generally.Gurdjieff’s conception of “personality” = Heidegger’s “They-self”“Essence” = authentic resolute self oriented in the mode of being-toward-death. The essence is buried beneath the personality (They-self) and approached, developed, awakened by practices like self-remembering and self-observation (perhaps like Heidegger on contemplative thought as opposed to calculative thought), remembrance of one’s death, and scratching beneath and deconstructing all the ordinary views on society, life, ethical issues, common concepts and language, etc., implanted in us by social conditioning. “Being-toward-death” is explicitly reflected in and urged in Gurdjieff’s teachings. As in the end of Beelzebub’s Tales, where Beelzebub says something along the lines of, “The one great thing that would help those unfortunates [humanity] would be the implantation of an organ in them that would constantly remind them of the deaths of both themselves and of every other unfortunate they also happen to lay eyes upon.”Heidegger on forgetfulness of Being as being one of the core elements of Western philosophy after a certain turn (after the Presocratics) is mirrored in Gurdjieff’s diagnosis that we do not “remember ourselves”, we are not conscious of the bare sheer fact of being a being within Being.
>>23313036>>23313061what does it mean to come at the cost of Being? Being isn't something you can just give up. so unity comes with no consequences.
>>23314182>of being a being within Being.But that's where it's wrong. Being comes only from the person. The cave is not real and isn't nothing either - he cave is bewilderment.>>23314289Unity comes only from bewilderment.
>>23314307>Unity comes only from bewilderment.Without unity there is only bewilderment.
>>23314429It's the contrary. The condition for unity is self-alienation.You canonly truly be with others when all are able to think. When all are Beings. When there is a lack then there is groupthink/unity.
>>23314307>>of being a being within Being.>But that's where it's wrong. Being comes only from the person. The cave is not real and isn't nothing either - he cave is bewilderment.Well, in a way, that’s fair enough. When I made the phrase that sounds a little pretty and poetic (“being a being within Being”), I was aware, at least half-consciously, it could be objected to. Particularly for the use of the spatial modifier “within”. I believe even Heidegger lobbed some potshots at this in his discussions of the Cartesian conception of space in Being & Time. Dasein (ourselves, the “I” or “self” always personally saying something, doing something, putting forth a given perspective, etc., from whom all coherent speech, including that of philosophy, the arts, science, mathematics, etc. must come from, lit. “there-being” or “being-there”). Dasein is not simply just a bare object, characterized by presence-at-hand, ‘inside’ of an all-surrounding space, like a fish in a fishbowl. This all-surrounding space is in fact something like co-extensive with Dasein, our being is intimately bound up with all being we perceive or move in (in a Kantian transcendental idealist sense, because our own sensory organs and consciousness themselves are what is responsible for space and time, and, if these organs or consciousness were changed, space and time would correspondingly be different — a dust-mite for instance, seeing as “large” or “all-encompassing” what we would see as just a small spot on the bed or table, and MAYBE even (who knows?) having a different sense of time, such that it takes its short (to us) lifespan as a relatively long and complex one). So can we truly say “we are within Being”? As if “Being” could be reified, ‘thingified’ or turned into some object or analogous to an environment in which we live, reduced to some conception as that of the air around us, space, or an ether? Or is it rather that “Being is within us”? (Manifested by our sensory organs and consciousness, in something like a Kantian sense). Well, interestingly enough, I think Heidegger is saying something yet beyond the two (or perhaps reconciling the two in something like a non-dual fashion), as in his work (however cryptically he puts it, and in a rather different philosophical language with many neologisms and seemingly awkward forms of speech) he deconstructs the opposing poles of idealism vs. materialism as well as the subject-object dichotomy.
>>23314826You are throughout yourself and separate from all else that ever influenced you. Every part of yourself is a friend and only acts as an enemy when it is bewildered.
>>23314307>>23314826So again, to try to make it clearer if my language seems circuitous, tricky, torturous and roundabout, it’s indeed true that to think in crudely spatial terms of “Being as merely characterized by a (physical, spatially extended) subject being within an all-surrounding environment of objects, which could be called space” [which, again, implicitly reduces our own being or subjecthood as being a spatial object characterized by presence-at-hand, same as a rock existing in the environment] is an incomplete way of talking about “Being”. So to speak of “being a being within Being” is subtly a fallacy by implying we are simply objects “within” a larger object, with this spatial relationship like, again, being a fish in a fishbowl. It’s more like the fishbowl itself being a projection itself manifested by the sensory-organs and consciousness of that fish, making a non-spatial/non-dual relationship between the fish and its environment, subjectivity and objectivity. So to put it with an, again, crudely spatial metaphor, “Being” encompasses these two poles—of the world as ‘outside us’ (materialism) and the world as ‘inside us’ (idealism). (And various examples of the world’s mystics, from the Sufis to Meister Eckhart, have also so much as said, demonstrated, or implied this. It’s not for nothing that Heidegger is known to have been influenced by some Zen and Taoist ideas, as well as to have had some thought compatible enough with them to inspire the Kyoto school, fusing Heidegger and apposite/related Western philosophy generally with Eastern philosophy.) Or I guess you can listen to the Beatles’ “Within You Without You” from Sgt. Pepper’s on acid or something, that might work, too, although perhaps it’s a little too sentimentalized and turned into something like a mass social movement that might itself breed inauthenticity/becoming lost in the They-self (as “being a hippie”, “having the values of free-love and spirituality of the 60s, including appropriation of Indian and Buddhist spirituality”) for Heidegger’s taste.
>>23314841>You are throughout yourself and separate from all else that ever influenced you. Every part of yourself is a friend and only acts as an enemy when it is bewilderedConversely, can’t one also say, “All is only ‘I’, there is nothing but ‘I’”? (The perception and experience of ‘the world’ is, again, necessarily dependent on the sensory-organs, consciousness and perspective of an ‘I’ inevitably always talking of something like a ‘world’, the core irreducible perspective from which anything can be said to exist at all.) This could of course be interpreted either from one extreme pole as ‘solipsism’, from another angle as a worldview of ‘non-duality’ (perhaps the absolute summit of the expression of which is found in Advaita Vedanta).
>>23314528Why? I meant from the point of view that if there are no unities to grasp onto, then there are no things to grasp onto. Unities are what allow you to cognize a thing as a thing and not as separate things or a blob of atoms.
>>23309628Wait, how is the Parmenides different? I thought Heidegger was trying to bring out what Parmenides was saying, which is a notoriously abstruse dialogue anyway.
>>23311522It just sounds like Heidegger is making a proto-Deleuzian point but with better awareness of the ontological difference.
>>23314826If Being isn't reifiable, then "Being Isn't" Is, and so it is yet to be a definitive concept for it lacks principality, and any statement (axiom) said of it brings about nothing as in, has no formal cause to effectuate.>>23314884There are different delineations of Unities that could be stated but they aren't Platonic Forms, just Unific distinctions prior to Unities concerning of One to Many as Unities concerning All to One. The One that is not Unity is the Undetermined Unity of the various determinate Unities of One-All All-One(from One-All), and the Undetermined Unified(Unity of One-All and All-One) that is the same as the One-Being, but that One-Being is a Discreet entity, it isn't the Formless Ones. Anything beyond the Undetermined One is at an ineffable impasse which has no hypostasis and can be said to not be at All, and it is that which cannot be further determined not even as the Undetermined One, ending the spiritual exercises of any notion of surpassing beyond the One that isn't in some manner the redescent back towards the Forms back into the Cave where you belonging to belong along all along.
>>23315718how can a One not be a Unity?
>>23315767The One and Unity distinction may not be any different in undetermination of what is indefinite depending of context to the type of One and the type of Unity that becomes enFormed. Theon of Smyrna had elaborated on the various interpretations of these Ones and Unities in his generally Middle Platonist era thoughts, but Plato's Parmenides discussing the first deduction talks about the One that is not the One. Whether Unity gives rise to a One or a One gives rise to a Unity only exists determinately in a condition of One giving rise to Unity or the other way around. Without some clearly derived syntax, One and Unity are easily conflated with each other, and so there is different Ones and different Unities that ignores the synonymous use. I however, overcome this by stating a Unit is an equal ratio of some thing to the same thing, while One is a Measure of some thing else to a Unit. The least contingent something is a magnitude. Speaking of Ones and Unities prior to Magnitudes speak of Hypostases prior to even the Void of the Cosmos that houses distinctions of Location as Here and Not-Here and the Shortest Path to Move from Here to Not-There is a Magnitude. This means Magnitude, at least concerning Geometry and all else that subsists upon Location (i.e., Physics) is prior to Numbers which are posterior to it. Without Magnitude, any distinction of a Unit is an Equal Ratio of Intangible Instantiations. Any instantiations of that which cannot be reified cannot even be spoken of and so one is at an impasse in silence, incapable of elaborating any unconcealment as the misguided that lost their way along the way at a state of undetermination.
bump
I'm confused. Why would the qualities of unity and one be distinct from each other? Is that even possible? It's like saying that heatness and heat are distinct, no? Is this related to the difference between a henad and a monad? Sorry for all the questions, just doing my best to try to latch onto what you're saying and compare it to what I already know.
>>23315824>>23318359whoops, forgot to quote
>>23318359Monada means Unit and it is also its own Self-Measure as One, but the function of Unit and the Measure of Unit to the Function of the Unit is said attributively as the name of One.Think about it like this, a Circle has Magnitudinal Symmetry from its Center in a way that when the path of its Radius meets the path of the Circle and that same path is met in the complete opposite radial direction in the same radial distance to the same Circle.Likewise, the Equal Measure of two Radii in the same Circle centered in the same circle path are said to be the Same regardless of the Angle and Arc Lengths those Radii are subtended to.____:[_]=Ratio of Antecedent (Geometrically Greater) Magnitude to Consequent (Geometrically Lesser) Magnitude as chosen Distance Unit_:[_]=Equal Ratio of Antecedent Magnitude to Consequent Unit Magnitude of the Same Magnitude as the AntecedentMeasure(_:[_])=1 as Natural NumberMeasure(____:[_]}=4 as Natural NumberAll Natural Numbers must have Quotientness as in, both Antecedent and Consequent must be Divisible by a Unit MagnitudeMeasure(__:_)=2/1=Number2/1 as Number=2 as Natural NumberMeasure(Pi/1) as Alogos≠NumberPi=Geometric Constant, Immeasurable as NumberThere is however, Magnitudinal Arithmetic WITHOUT Numbers, which relies on a Unit Magnitude, Antecedent Magnitude, Consequent Magnitude, and a Circle to form a fourth Magnitude that is the Product of the Antecedent to Consequent in terms of the Unit Magnitude as the Scale of sorts that the Antecedent, Consequent, and the Product Magnitudes are share the same Magnitudinal Quotientness to without Number. This uses the Euclidean Chord configuration, and three points to make a circular path surrounding the Chord of Antecedent+Consequent with Unit Magnitude Segment having a point on the point between the Chord of the Antecedent Segment to Consequent Segment, and another point outside the Antecedent+Consequent Chord. Any Three Points in a non-linear path is a path that a Circle resides upon. After forming that Circle, the extended path of the Unit Magnitude within the Circle that meets the other side of the Circle makes the missing Product Magnitude and forms together the Unit+Product Chord. See this for context: https://www.academia.edu/102530388/Symmetry_of_the_circle_defines_four_basic_arithmetic_operations_x_
>>23318359Keeping >>23320117 in mind, Magnitudes can represent any size, dimension, or extent. Algebra exists after numbers which exists after magnitudes, so any Finite Magnitudinal Arithmetic exists prior to Algebra using arbitrary finite magnitude segments in a specific way relating to the Circle.This of course means a Geometric Constant's Magnitude can be used for Finite Magnitudinal Aritmetic Operations, There is no non-finite Geometry whatsoever to begin nor end with, it never existed, and never will exist in Calculus or otherwise as there is no Calculus without Trigonometry and Trigonometry can be fixed using a Closed Form Radical system, no "Limit Theory" is used at all. All the Calculus terms have nothing to do with the Metaphysical use of Limit and Arithmetic and such, and quite frankly, the Pythagoreans got things extremely wrong in declaring Number is prior to Geometry when Geometry gives rise to Number.Nobody can count points without a magnitude distinguishing and separating a point from another point and there are only two primitive point distinctions as here and a negation of the distinction of the location named as a here as not-here which the path to here to not-there implies the existence of magnitude as there are two points, so to even "count" more than an idea of something requires magnitude. That's right, to even count the idea of one requires magnitude, there is no counting without magnitude and distinctions of locations in themselves aren't counting anything.This is why "The One is not the One", it isn't the Named One that is Counted of in terms of Magnitude, it is merely an apophatic expression of that which isn't based upon Location at all. Any "Philosophic Arithmetic" is not at all Magnitudinal Arithmetic nor Numerical Arithmetic, it is merely a sort of exhaustion of dialectic discursion as ends to directly self-apprehend the Absolute.
>>23318359To further nail the coffin down, as previously stated that Matter and Motion both must exist for there to be any notion of Time, all Matter have Magnitude of some size, dimension, or extent occupying a volume and is also in motion, moving from one location point to another location point. One might count one two three etc. within Time, but that counting within Time is within Space within Magnitude within Location, within the Idea that these things subsists upon before any instantiation of those Ideas outside the Noetic Realm within the Psychic Realm that the Ideas of these things are set into Motion like imperfect images, shapes, and matter of the perfect images, shapes, and matter in its Perfect Platonic Forms. To even come close to understanding the One, you must have a firmer grasp of what is not the One as ends to know that Perfect One beyond what the One Causes to Be, so that you won't conflate the One beyond Being as Non-Being from the Matter below Being as Non-Being, for there are Two "Non-Beings" that are spoken in relation to Being, yet one is Greater than the One-Being as if it was Infinite, while the complete lack of Being-ness can only be a complete Negation of Being which when posited ends up positing that it exists AS "something" whereby "something" for it to Be outside of Being must "Become" Matter. Notions as the "Instant", "Unground", must not be conflated with as strict causative paradigms of Physics, which is why I had elaborated on these things in such a manner.
going to bump this later
>>23309372Parmenides nuts
>>23320117If monad means unit, then what is a unit? Is it an instantiated unity, as in, a unity *of* something? I would imagine then that a henad is just the unity qua unity then. Sorry if I haven't read your full three posts. I will read it soon. I've just been very busy with work so I can only chime in every now and then. Doing my best to keep it alive.
>>23309816reminds me of Gurdjieff
>>23320117How can you have magnitude without numbers? And are you using magnitude and unit interchangeably? It seems like it.
>>23322505Henosis in English gets translated as Oneness, Unity, Union interchangeably. Monada as Unit, Monas as One, Monos as Only, Solidary, Monas as special feminine form of Monos as Unit, Monada and Monas. There is only so much to tease out of the Greek without getting these things confused as you are, for those who lack the mindset of the architect cannot grasp the art which requires one to self engage in geometric thinking that many philosophic systems engages in it moreso than abstractions that take so much shortcuts that the claims made has no relation to geometry yet also foolishly attempts to describe it in geometric terms.>>23322692Magnitude attributionally describes any size, dimension, or extent. Magnitude in geometry is any path between two points including curved paths, squiggly paths, etc. Using the straight line path of the shortest distance from here to not-here, a straight line segment is known and is what is used as the ends of generating the Circle of which there is no arithmetic without the straight line as well as the circle.Two supposedly distinct points different by name but not by location are distinct in relation to motion and time in labeling one A and the other point B, yet fundamentally are of the same singular location and so there is no location magnitude to speak of and so there's no slope, and no slope means no so called "rate of change", there's not even an infinitesimal to speak of in a singular location. Even Damascius fails to avoid the brainrot that Aristotle brought upon the world on the nature of time.I am not claiming magnitudes are all units in themselves, but instead, maintains geometric permanence compared to other magnitudes when shifted around in location, and among the various linearized magnitudes (can even be say, a magnitude of Pi or e or sqrt2) as a straight line segment, one of those can be a unit magnitude.There can be unit magnitudes in relation to the circle in two intersecting chords of four segments upon the circle path. Please look into independent.academia.edu/johngabriel30 to grasp Geometry first before Philosophy and/or Physics.There can also be a greatest common denominator that can be known said of any two finite line segment as magnitude representations though that doesn't require the circle but requires knowing Book VII Proposition 2.No number exists prior to magnitude, magnitude is an abstract concept derived through the geometric line, and number has many more contingent abstract dependencies of what it prior to it to define it.Ignoring these details had lead to ill formed philosophy, math, physics, beliefs, and needless suffering of multigenerational parroting of ill formed concepts (since Pythagoras and onwards) without ever questioning how something can be known even if the world were to be wiped clean and emptied and being rebuilt from one Platonic Idea to eventually instantiate even the Form of a Horse, for even the Form of Matter is formed out of magnitude.
>>23323289>Magnitude attributionally describes any size, dimension, or extent.You're describing magnitude through so many quantity-related terms without ever sufficiently giving a reason as to why it is divorced from quantity itself. If you ignore the possibility of a geometrical figure having a distance, then all you have left are vague notions of something being larger, smaller, or the equal size. I don't know where you're trying to go with that, since surely number is lurking there even if we ignore it.Also, what's the big deal with Aristotle's thinking on time?
>>23323289 The Form of Many is not the Many Instantiations of each every Other-than-"The One". The Form of the Number 2 is not Counted but merely Apprehended beyond Counting below the Instantiations, the Particulars. Particulars does not have all the Forms into itself. Unities doesn't concern with Forms and although all Particulars have Unities, Particulars lack "All Forms". Unities are the true "Universal Forms" without being Forms, "Many" is never used. The Philosopher's One as A-pollon or Without-Many is not a Positive Reification(Tangible or Intangible) but an Attribute.Concerning the Geometer's One which is not "The One", I've said enough, you need to play around on some digital geometry app on a desktop or laptop or tablet to really grasp the info dump I've posted so far. It's not my duty to think for yourself these matters, and disagree all you like, but you only shown more signs of misunderstanding due to a bottom-up fallacy in insisting one can in a sense, "Quantize the Qualitative" Form that generates Number which has to use Magnitude, there just no way around it, for nobody can count all the Forms even if it must be "limited". Not even Zeus can numerate the diagonal of a square to the same square's side, but Magnitudinally there still is a greatest common denominator as a magnitude said for both of them simultaneously all without using Numbers.The Intellect beholds the Forms, but it does not behold neither Nothing nor Infinity but instead beholds a Form of the Void and the Form of Eternity (attributively in the negative as Timelessness) and struggles to grasp the Form of the Formless One without using a different All that isn't a composition of Many as the Form of All. All is not-finite but not unbounded(apeiron) in the paradigm of Forms. All effects are in their causes, the highest cause itself cannot be causal.All things are "One and Many" which is the realm of Souls, Particulars, Enmattered Souls, the Plotinian Third Hypostasis, the Hiranyagarbha of the Vedas, the Jivatman (Living Soul) of some Vedantic systems, but the All without "things" are Unities before the Undetermined Unity and anything further beyond does not have any hypostatic paradigm to speak of. The hypostasization of Matter distinct from One, One-Many(Nous, also Magnitude), One and Many(Psyche) as the fourth guest that is missing from the invitation to the banquet is missing on purpose, for appearances are not as it seems. Any Hylomorphism of some sort begins and ends with Psyche.Aristotle is a very inconsistent man, he allows infinities and disallows them whenever he feels like it. Time can divide indefinitely(not "infinite") but only in finite steps in finite time and there is no "infinite division in itself" or a superstep and it can't even be thought up correctly for it is taken in ill faith to presume a delusion as such for every division of a segment with a new point makes instead two divided yet also undivided segments.
>>23323524meant for >>23323297
>>23322518Chronic stress causes brain damage. What Heidegger and Gurdjieff claim is completely factual.
>>23323524>It's not my duty to think for yourself these matters, and disagree all you like, but you only shown more signs of misunderstanding due to a bottom-up fallacy in insisting one can in a sense, >Considering how often you try to shill your book and then get upset when people don't bother reading it, it's not really your position to say. Especially when you make weird and presumptive arguments like magnitude comes before number, when everybody normally thinks that they're synonymous or at least incredibly tied together to the point that one implies the other. I asked a simple question and you can't give me a straight, to the point answer. It makes me think that reading your stuff is a waste of time.>Aristotle is a very inconsistent man, he allows infinities and disallows them whenever he feels like it. Time can divide indefinitely(not "infinite") but only in finite steps in finite time and there is no "infinite division in itself" or a superstep and it can't even be thought up correctly for it is taken in ill faith to presume a delusion as such for every division of a segment with a new point makes instead two divided yet also undivided segments.Every period of time is finite. But you can always choose a smaller period of time to measure. That's what he's saying. What's wrong with that?
>>23324491fuck I butchered the formatting of this post>>23323524>It's not my duty to think for yourself these matters, and disagree all you like, but you only shown more signs of misunderstanding due to a bottom-up fallacy in insisting one can in a sense, Considering how often you try to shill your book and then get upset when people don't bother reading it, it's not really your position to say. Especially when you make weird and presumptive arguments like magnitude comes before number, when everybody normally thinks that they're synonymous or at least incredibly tied together to the point that one implies the other. I asked a simple question and you can't give me a straight, to the point answer. It makes me think that reading your stuff is a waste of time.>Aristotle is a very inconsistent man, he allows infinities and disallows them whenever he feels like it. Time can divide indefinitely(not "infinite") but only in finite steps in finite time and there is no "infinite division in itself" or a superstep and it can't even be thought up correctly for it is taken in ill faith to presume a delusion as such for every division of a segment with a new point makes instead two divided yet also undivided segments.Every period of time is finite. But you can always choose a smaller period of time to measure. That's what he's saying. What's wrong with that?
>>23324491It is abused by various people in history to imply infinitesimals in themselves exists despite being palpably a paradox that is used to imply a line have infinite points. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYLkDZ0BdAk...and with that, I bid adieu
>>23325039Are you a radical finitist like Wildberger?
>>23325051more like wildnigger lmao
