Gadamerian Hermeneutics in Review

This is the "intention" of Gadamer "not falling into the rut romantic" (338) operating on the basis of ontology Heidegger, a shift of the hermeneutical problem of prejudice and tradition . We know how crucial was the contribution of Heidegger renewal of contemporary hermeneutics, Gadamer that did not fail to stress the rest: "The record of Heidegger temporality of human Dasein has shown convincingly, in my opinion that understanding is not a mode of behavior in other matters, but the mode of being of Dasein itself. In that sense, the concept of hermeneutics is being implemented here. It means the basic motion of life, which is in its finitude and its historicity, and thus embraces the whole experience monde3.

Before s'appartenir and can establish with the world and himself a subject to subject, man is to be, in the sense that it always-déjàl'être: not in a way as a result of reflexive awareness, but as it is a Da-sein, then a being irretrievably discarded before any discussion, and in his very being, in the temporal experience of being. It is thus based on the discovery of this structure Heidegger anticipation of original understanding - both in structure and temporal préréflexive which implies the subordination of the theory of knowledge in the ontology - that Gadamer is entitled to rehabilitation of non-romantic bias in the human sciences, a foundation of tradition irreducible to a purely intellectual.

Gadamer intends to restore their fundamental rights in the factor of the hermeneutic tradition in the humanities. Research that is the subject of human sciences, he wrote in Truth and Method, can not conceive itself in opposition pure and simple with the attitude we have towards the past as we live in history. In any case, our permanent disposition towards the past in which we are constantly involved is not for us to stay away and free ourselves from the tradition passed. On the contrary, we are constantly in tradition and this excludes any immersion objectifying attitude that we would consider the contribution of tradition as something else, a foreigner, this contribution is therefore always felt like ours, it is a model to follow or deny, a way we recognize ourselves, under which the trial subsequent historical returns on the past will have little real knowledge, but just the accommodation that is less constraint of tradition4.

If I took such a long quote is that it reflects, in my opinion, what Ricoeur calls "the controversy Antireflex" (340) qu'entretient hermeneutics gadamérienne and place it on the immediately in conflict with the critique of ideologies. Without doubt, Ricoeur concedes, the phenomenology of the authority that Gadamer's hermeneutics incorporates traditions "implies a certain critical time," and he "must be grateful to have attempted to reconcile, rather than oppose, the authority and reason "(344-345).

Moreover, by linking explicitly "the interpretation of the past and there to" application "(Anwendung) here today" (354), and designing tradition not as a "natural reality "which should be preserved, but rather what" needs to be seized, assumed and maintained, Gadamer recognizes that tradition "is an act of reason" (345).
Finally, the key concept of the hermeneutic gadamérienne the Wirkungsgeschichtliches Bewusstsein (literally the awareness of the history of effects, as Ricoeur translated as' awareness of the history of effective "or" conscience exposed to the effects of history "), insofar as it refers to a" category of awareness of history ", does he not necessarily the distance of it, therefore a moment of objectification conducive to critical input of the past and tradition?

But as we look closely, with great lucidity the concept "and we soon discovered that this is not the consciousness of the history of effects suggests the contrary" is massive and comprehensive of belonging and awareness of dependence with respect to even affecting even before birth to consciousness itself "(346). Or, as defined by Gadamer himself in a passage from the Kleine Schriften quoted by Ricoeur (346), the Wirkungsgeschichtliches Bewusstsein means, first, that "our consciousness is determined by a historical reality, ensure that it has no freedom to lie in front of the past "and, secondly, they are always taking new consciousness of the action exerted on us, ensure that any past, what we have to experience forces us to take full responsibility, to assume in any way the truth. "

Read more...

Quotation from Truth and Method

"Time is no longer primarily a gulf to be bridged, because it separates, but it is actually the supportive ground of process in which the present is rooted. Hence temporal distance is not something that must be overcome. This was, rather, the naive assumption of historicism, namely that we must set ourselves within the spirit of the age, and think with its ideas and its thoughts, not with our own, and thus advance towards historical objectivity. In fact the important thing is to recognise the distance in time as a positive and productive possibility of understanding. It is not a yawning abyss, but is filled with the continuity of custom and tradition, in the light of which all that is handed down presents itself to us." (Gadamer 1975: 264f.)

"Understanding is not to be thought of so much as an action of one's subjectivity, but as the placing of oneself within a process of tradition, in which past and present are constantly fused." (Gadamer 1975: 258)
"The projecting of the historical horizon, then, is only a phase in the process of understanding, and does not become solidified into the self-alienation of a past consciousness, but is overtaken by our own present horizon of understanding. In the process of understanding there takes place a real fusing of horizons, which means that as the historical horizon is projected, it is simultaneously removed." (Gadamer 1975: 273)

Read more...

Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics is the art of understanding, but also a wide range of different approaches in the context of scholars such as Friedrich Schleiermacher, Wilhelm Dilthey and Martin Heidegger (Maclean 1986; see also Johnsen and Olsen, 1992: 420-423, 429f.). In this work, the important is the hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer, in his magnum opus Truth and Method (1975).
Understanding interpretation as a time lag

Most importantly, Gadamer has made it clear that he, hermeneutics is not a method for understanding, but an attempt "to clarify the conditions in which understanding takes place" (Gadamer 1975: 263). Under such conditions are crucial, prejudices and fore-meanings in the minds of the interpreters. Understanding is always interpretation, and it means confronting his own ideas, so that the meaning of the object can be really, talk to us (Gadamer 1975: 358). Understanding is not only a reproductive, but a very productive process, and interpretation is always changing during the reception of the story of what is understood.

One of the biggest problems is with Gadamer is how to distinguish 'true prejudices "with which we understand from the" wrong "to which we misunderstand. He proposes as a solution to the development of a" historical "self-awareness to raise awareness of their own prejudices and allows one to isolate and evaluate an object on itself: but I am unsure how this can work and, more importantly, how to always be sure that Gadamer's position as a whole (see below ), the view of an object "on its own" (Gadamer 1975: 266f., see also 269f.; CF. Maclean 1986: 133f.).

Another important prerequisite to the understanding of the place, time interval. For Gadamer, past and present are firmly connected and the past is not something that is too painful back into the individual steps:

"Time is no longer primarily a gulf to be bridged because it separates, but it is actually the reason, the process in which the present is rooted. Therefore, temporal distance is not something that must be overcome. This was much more the naive assumption of historicism, ie we need to deal with the spirit of the time, and think with their ideas and thoughts, not with our own, and therefore the historical objectivity. In fact, important to recognize the gap in time as a positive and productive possibility of understanding. It is not a yawning abyss, but with the continuity of custom and tradition, against the background of all that is is for us. "(Gadamer 1975: 264f. )

Read more...

Brain is still?

Brain is still? The more we learn, the brain, the more this question difficult to answer. To material scientists only matter is real, nothing else. For them, mental phenomena, or what we call spirit are all products of material phenomena. Logical positivism asserts the primacy of observation in assessing the truth of the statement of facts. Arguments not on observable data are meaningless. These philosophies, separation of the mind as a non-material entity is not possible. Gregory Bateson presents his theory of the unity of mind and brain elegant, "The spirit is no longer separated from the body as the speed is independent of the matter. Or, as acceleration is independent of speed." This is in contrast to Descartes' concept or Cartesian dualism, where the observer (you) is separated from the observed (the rest of the universe).

The modern description of the mind is derived from the brilliant philosophy of Max Planck. Proposed on 14 December 1900, his theory of quantum physics states that energy is emitted in bundles or quanta. He also notes that the dualism of observer and observed, is an illusion. I and the universe are one. Literally. To a Westerner this concept may seem strange to a Sufi, Taoist or Buddhist, it is but natural.

Fred Alan Wolf in his book, in which the Quantum Leap, suggests that "mind" is a property of all matter or energy, to peptides, atoms, electrons and quarks. The molecule is "spirit" is the random choice. For example, if the choice "to" fit into the molecular receptor and inhibit a function of choice is "down", opposite will happen. Neurons receive signals from each millisecond Dogs that are either on or off state of the neuron, or whether or not to fire, fire withuot question! There are trillions of decisions that every millisecond within the 3-pound mass of cells we call the brain. And all these decisions of molecular and atomic centers to combine what we call our spirit and sense of self-consciousness or awareness or I. And that is the theory of reality, relatively speaking. Quantum theory describes the likelihood of something happening, happening suddenly and thus explains the dependence of mind on the brain as something else. Therefore, modern science rejects the concept of dualism of Descartes. But unlike before Descartes monistic paradigms, it proposes the theory of all-in-one concept with an eternal elements, the dilemma of the desecration of the soul, therefore, not arise, because it is an epiphenomenon of the brain.

The scientific paradigm of the human brain is that it is an electrochemically powered organ. The mind or I either resides in or around the brain, and it is probably a work of the brain, the electrochemical activity, such as the current static objects.

The energy required for the mind to function during waking hours by the brain mechanisms. The spirit disappears when the brain mechanisms no longer work due to injury or because of intereference epileptic drugs or drugs or even during sleep. Apparently some specialized brain turn off the unit that stimulates the mind, every time it falls asleep. He switches off the power upon awakening, a means to alleviate the fatigue of the brain. In both alternatives, the mind has no memory of its own. The brain, like any computer, saves what he learns during his lifetime. The recorded data will be available immediately, however, while awake, and perhaps in some way distorted during sleep - what we call dreams.

The epiphenomenon or semi-monistic paradigm of mind and brain by the current scientific theories, leading to speculation that I am actually in the brain, since it is an organization of the brain. Dr. Wilder Penfield, the famous neurosurgeon in the 1930s tried to "ghost" in the brain. Hundreds of operations performed by Dr. Penfield brain showed that itself has no sense of perception and feeling no pain. Operations, in conscious subjects demonstrated that there was no "spirit" in the brain, but there were areas in the brain, on the interaction with spirit. Dr. Penfield discovered these centers in 1943. These brain centers but not as a ghost Penfield, which suggest that mind and brain are two different forms of energy.

Based on observations Penfiled the question of what happens to mind when the brain goes to sleep? Two hyopotheses are now possible, if the spirit disappears. Firstly, the spirit is no longer available as it is only a function of the brain. It is every time again the highest brain-mechanism goes into normal operation. In the second case, the dualistic approach to mind as a fundamental element in itself, a medium, an essence, a Soma, the continued existence. Therefore, when the spirit disappears, it is silent, it is no longer a connection to the brain, but it gives and takes when the highest brain-mechanism being used.

The problem with the procurement of questions about the disappearance of mind is difficult, because the answer is, we assume, would be in a language understandable to us. Our concept of energy is based on the principles of physics, which also changed in the near future. The understanding of matter and the understanding of the truth may not be free. The paradigms of reality, human brain and positivism paradigms not only realities as best we speak. Perhaps we see around us what is just a mirror image of our own vision, is because we try to visualize ourselves from the outside. Perhaps what around us do not exist.

More confusing than the idea of whether we exist or not, the reality is that something, tangible or otherwise, is our captain, regardless of the independence of our actions and our thoughts. "All people, regardless of their intelligence or other attributes are forced to serve similar functions, the survival and promoting the maintenance of the race. As if we have been programmed as a slave. All types of performing its tasks by their brain or mind. Where our mind is the brain or the blue-print of our actions?

If spirit has different dimensions than what we know, then take into account need to know the answer, as it arose. Why not do it with our brain. One possibility is that we evolve, to understand it and the second, more fear is that if we said that we may refuse to obey. One day, sometime in the future, even a few million years from now, we know all the answers. On this day, to paraphrase Penfield, smile all the prophets.

Read more...

Who am I?

The big question remains: Who am I? What is it that makes me act? Who or what controls my actions and I do things that perpetuate my race? What is the nature of the material I? I is in me or outside me? Philosophers have long tried to answer these questions, because the man began to think, or I was created. Modern theories of science have their attack on the issue, and if we have not found the answer, we have come a long way.

The spirit or soul was for a long time as an integral part of the body. The Spirit lived in different parts of our body, the most popular are the heart, as the Bible says. There was apparently no problem accepting this concept, up to about three hundred years. In the seventeenth century, Rene Descartes, who at the tender age of 24 proved to be one of the most influential philosophers. Before the time of Descartes, mind and body, and it was sacriligous to open cadaver or next one. Descartes proposed that the mind is separated from the body, and that God is the mediator between the two.The dichotomy of the Cartesian dualism of Descartes, were the philosophers of the past three centuries, enough to dwell on. Numerous theoretical extensions of Descartes' theory, but were apparently not all until recently.

Read more...

No God, No Reason?

I can not atheists - but it is not because they do not believe in God. It is because they are crashing bores.

Other people, recently the British cultural critic Terry Eagleton in his new book, "Faith, Reason and Revolution" to this task Superstar nonbelievers as Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins ( "The God Delusion") and political journalist Christopher Hitchens ( "God is not great "), for a primitive philosophical contradiction of faith and reason that assumes that if science can not prove something, it does not exist.
My problem with atheists is their annoying - and so old - that they are suppressed and their fixation with the finer points of Christianity. What - have their Sunday school teachers flew her ass with a Bible when they children?

Read Dawkins, Hitchens or, or the work of fellow atheist Sam Harris ( "The End of Faith") and Daniel Dennett ( "Breaking the Spell"), or visit an atheist Web site or blog (there are dozens of them, with Titles such as "God is for Suckers," "God is Imaginary" and "God is Pretend"), and your eyes will glaze over as you consider - again - the compulsive small range of topics around the circle atheists such as water into a burden.

Firstly, there are atheist victimology: Boohoo, hates all of us' Cuz we do not believe in God. Even though a recent Pew Forum survey on religion found that 16% of Americans describe themselves as religiously independent, only 1.6% call themselves atheists, with a weight of 2.4% as agnostic (a group despised as a wishy-washy by atheists). You or I might attribute the low number of atheists "will not win converts their unbelief, but atheists say that the problem is that the relentless pursuit to drive millions of God-deniers in a cupboard of feigned faith, such as gay before Stonewall.

In its online "Atheist Manifesto," Harris writes that "no person, regardless of their qualifications, can be a public office in the United States without pretending to be sure ... that God exists. " The evidence? Antique-clauses in the constitutions of six - count 'em - States barring atheists from office.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that these provisions are not enforceable in almost 50 years, but this does not bewailing atheists, that they are to hide their atheism from friends, relatives, employers and potential dates. A representative of the pity-poor-Me school of atheism, Kathleen Goodman, writing in January for the Chronicle of universities, went so far as to promote the "affirmative action" for atheists on college campuses: "Specially Designated, College subsidized "safe space" for them to express their views.

Maybe atheists are not so unpopular when it exits the drum to beat, until the skin shares to their second favorite topic: How stupid are the people who believe in God. This is a popular topic Dawkins. Recently in an interview with Trina Hoaks, the atheist blogger for Examiner.com website Dawkins religious believers as follows: "You have the feeling uneducated, they are often quite stupid what they are inferior, they are and paranoid about sharp head intellectuals from the East Coast in search of them, with some justification, they do. "Thank you, Richard!

Dennett likes to call atheists "The Brights", unlike all others, of course, are not so rosy. In an essay describing the 2006 brush with death after a heart surgery, Dennett wrote these thoughts about his religious friends told him they were praying for his recovery: "Thank you, I am very grateful, but did you also sacrifice a goat? " With friends like Daniel Dennett, you do not need enemies.

Then there is P.Z. Myers, biology professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris Campus, his blog, Pharyngula, is allegedly on Myers' field of evolutionary biology, but in fact his passion for the identification of fanatical religious believers as "idiots", "moron", "Fun "or" imbecilic "in almost every post. The University will disable the link to Myers' blog in July after it with a photo of a consecrated host in a mass that he had pierced with a rusty nail and in the trash ( "I hope that Jesus' tetanus shots are up to date ") in an effort to prove that Catholicism is a bunk bed - or so.

Myers' Blog exemplary atheists "frenzied fascination with Christianity and the Bible. Atheist atheist website after website insists that Jesus either did not exist or was a jerk" (in the words of one blogger), because it does not eliminate smallpox or poverty in the world. At the American Atheists website, writers complained about the fact that God "the" Adam and Eve in advance to know that they eat the forbidden fruit. A blogger on A is for Atheist has in the Bible each chapter and verse by verse to prove his "madness" (he had the book to Joshua, when I last looked).

Another issue that atheists beat, like the hammer on the anvil in the old Anacin Advertising is Darwinism versus creationism. Perhaps Darwin-O-Mania arises from the fact that this year the Bicentennial of the birth of Charles Darwin in 1809, but not atheists is that many religious people (including the late Pope John Paul II) have no problem with the development but regard it as God's nature, his creation unfold livelihood? Moreover, even if human nature as we know it is a matter of luck adjustments, how exactly does refute that the existence of God?

And then there is the question, why are atheists who are so trying to prove not only that God does not exist, but evil to boot. Dawkins, writing in "The God Delusion," raises the deity, a "small, unjust, unforgiving control freak" and a "misogynistic, homophobic, racist ... Bully." If there is no God - and you are also so stupid to think otherwise - why does it matter whether he is good or evil?

The problem with atheists - and what makes them so painful snooze - is that few of them are interested in serious metaphysical or epistemological arguments against the existence of God, or when taking on the serious arguments that the theologians have tried to reconciliation of, say, God's omniscience with free will to God's goodness with human suffering. Atheists seem to assume that the whole idea of God is a ridiculous absurdity, the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" of atheists "typical lame jokes. They think that a few lobbing rockets Gaza-style casts God not to create a world more to their ideas ( "If there is a God, why do not I rich?" "If there is a God, why he is not to me: two heads, so I could sleep with a head, while I have some work done with the other?") is enough to knock the entire building of the faith.

What primarily seems to motivate atheists are not rational, but anger - anger that the world is not perfect, that someone be forced to go to church as children, that the Bible contains apparent contradictions, that man can commit, and hypocrites of crime in the name of faith. The vitriol is exceptional. Hitchens believes that "Religion spoils everything." Dawkins argues that raising their own offspring in religion is child abuse. Harris argues that it "may be ethical to kill people" on the basis of their faith. The perennial party atheist Michael Newdow sued (unsuccessfully) to bar Obama from President uttering the words "so help me God" when he is sworn.

What atheists do not seem to realize is that even for the believers, faith is never easy in this world of injustice, pain and delusion. Even for believers, God is only on the meaning of the Scrim. So, atheists, how about the loss of sarcasm tired and boring self-pity and the believers seriously?

Charlotte Allen is the author of "The Human Christ: The Search for the historical Jesus" and a contribution to the Minding the Campus Web site of the Manhattan Institute.

Read more...

Hermeneutics BY PAUL RICOEUR

French main representative of a philosophical, above all German - whose figures were in the nineteenth century, Schleiermacher and Dilthey, and the twentieth century, Heidegger and especially Gadamer - Paul Ricoeur has clearly given the task to the early 1960's legacy to fertilize hermeneutics in opening new horizons of thought: phenomenology, psychoanalysis, philosophy Anglo-Saxon language, in particular, such an opening it had to lead a thorough program herméneutique2.

It is this spirit of openness and dialogue with other major currents of contemporary thought, a spirit might say ecumenical underlying the effort in "Hermeneutics and critique of ideology" to rethink the question basic hermeneutics in a way that "would do justice to the critique of ideology, [...] which shows the need for the substance of its own requirements" (333). Task that requires first the removal of the mortgage romantic, according to Ricoeur, continues to weigh on the issue or the problem of modern hermeneutics.

It finds its origin, but also the deadlock in the questioning by the German romantic presuppositions of the Enlightenment, specifically in the denial of the "discredited prejudice by the Aufklärung," according Gadamer's words quoted by Ricoeur (339). However, this reaction to the romantic Aufklärung, if it is "a first foundation of the problem" hermeneutics, would at the same time its "fundamental failure" in the sense that the rehabilitation of prejudice, tradition and authority accomplished by the romantic hermeneutic, "has just overthrown without overthrowing the answer the question," has "made (by an argument that Gadamer finds in Ricoeur) a reversal against the pros or rather against the order, without managed to move the issue itself and to change the terrain of debate. " Because regardless of the merits "that we glorifies the muthos instead of celebrating the logos, which are calls for the former at the expense of New [...], for the mythical past against the future utopias rational" , etc.., when this plea is made "on the same ground, on the same ground of matter" as the enemy, without calling into question "the consciousness of self, mistress of herself and "the primacy of the trial in man's behavior towards the world" (338-340); anything obviously romantic hermeneutics and Dilthey himself, could not escape.

For Ricoeur, the whole "the question is whether Gadamer has really passed the point of romantic hermeneutics," if his hermeneutic traditions "outside the game of reversals in which it is locked philosophical romance, in the face of claims any critical philosophy "(339) and if, therefore," the modern conflict between ideologies critical of the Frankfurt School and hermeneutics by Gadamer mark any progress "(338) compared to sterile battle that since two centuries, the romance book against the Enlightenment.

Ricoeur's explanation is as follows. It is not as obsessed as Heidegger was the problem of the foundation, Gadamer was not aware "of the urgency of a dialectic down to the fundamental derivative of the ontology to epistemology, of belonging to history for its distance. What has prevented Gadamer to include a genuine critical in his hermeneutic, it is rather, says Ricoeur, "the hermeneutic experience itself", its "brand experience", namely "the scandal that is throughout the modern consciousness, the kind of distancing alienating - to Verfremdung - [...] which controls the attitude of objectifying human sciences ". The hermeneutic gadamérienne, "the place where the student's hermeneutic claim to universality" implies "refutation" of alienating distanciation own human sciences, and because, according to Gadamer, this attitude méthodologique "presupposes the destruction of the primordial relation of belonging - of ZugehËrigkert - otherwise there is no connection to history as such" (335, 364-365).

Without having to rephrase the basic question of hermeneutics, because it would have remained basically what he had, a prisoner of the initial location, romantic, of hermeneutics and the problem of tradition related, Gadamer, notwithstanding all its efforts to give a really positive significance to the problem of estrangement and alienation, failed to establish a proper hermeneutic criticism, ie a hermeneutic in which truth and method are not an alternative, but a dialectic "(368).

Now think that this interpretation of hermeneutics gadamérienne? One could certainly accuse him of not being very unselfish, to be commanded by a certain conception of "the task of herméneutique5" which Ricoeur outlines in the second part of his essay (366-370 ). In addition, to correct, "without (the) really contradict" the hermeneutics gadamérienne "in a decisive for the outcome of the debate with the critique of ideology", Ricoeur had he not first need to force some text Gadamer and interpret as an "initial situation and an alternative dichotomy" (365-366) which would, in fact, from Gadamer, that the assertion of a clear hierarchy? Is not this also what Ricoeur implicitly emphasizing that "criticism can never be first or last" (373),

Read more...

Modern Thinking

by Syamsul Maarif

There seems to be a characteristic of modern man that he had any statement to claim a hardship exists. So he answered - ex cathedra - questions that the rise time, from the constitution of his own ego. It is not so much the often lamented lack of a real life middle of a real general opinion of modern civilization, to the explanation of this behavior would be sufficient is much more to the modern man secretly totally sure that in all of its own existence Trichkräfte his own time are effective. It seems to him a mere matter of intense attention, which he directed at himself, and believes he has all the mysteries of his time and can cope with - if it takes a fair man - also to be able to pronounce. By the modern thinkers on the effective attitude in him giving evidence, he believes, that in itself all the time streams flow together.

Such an opinion seems outrageous and highly vulnerable. But even Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky were their subject. Walther Rathenau has such a wonderful visual image is found: "There is a kind of harmony between the prästabilierter unconsciously shaping dreams of time and individual work of the beholder ... Mechanically considered, we are best to their eyes to how the hand of the from the leaf plays: the eye is a stroke ahead, but both keep step and follow the composition of a third party. " Ernst Barlach and wrote a letter in the sentence: "Everything in life happens subconsciously, even if their subsequent realization of consistency."

Yes, there seems a tacit condition of modern thought to be that through a detailed examination of the constitutive elements of one's mind something like a general statement on the historical life and culture of the present is reached. If, however, then be true that everything we think, in a determinable relation to all this is what is thought of today, so should this "tacit assumption" is also in a sort of scientific methodology can be found again. And this is in fact so.

Both in philosophy as in history, in theology as in philosophy of culture has now developed a method, which presupposes the possibility that thinking person with her to be able to identify the object. This method is still nameless provisionally, and only the history of art, which sources most directly and directly experienced, it may be within their discipline to find a name: the "research", the methodological starting point of the new Viennese school, especially in the Vienna Ordinarius Art History, Hans Sedlmayr, their representative has been groundbreaking. In fact, however, the same method all weitwirkenden underlying thinking of today. She has lived in the theology of Karl Barth, in the philosophy of Heidegger, their representatives. It is cum grano salis in the assertion that the historical knowledge or not abiding image of the historic or present different source, but the best by an intellectual Be Right to be treated with the subject could be drawn. So Sedlmayr claimed in his book on the Roman Baroque architect Borromini, that it is through his identification with his subject-matter approach not only succeeded in the artistic and intellectual world of his heroes in the mentally-for the representation of objective reality and to bring it under this True knowledge not only from wrong clearly and critically exactly have between them, but that he himself drawing architectural plans have evolved, which he later architectural drawings of those newly confirmed Borromini place.

Karl Barth is in his commentary on Romans by a similar method to almost theological territory ahead, as he believes and confesses that his interpretation of Romans, not only the spirit of St. Paul to that effect, but it almost continued sit down, so that its almost Paulus cognition Paul being a mean. This outrageous claim that the new home to be Protestant, comes as a basic condition of the theological belief in the effectiveness of continuous disclosure to help with the "strict Christianity" today is quite familiar. To write in a certain operating gear of the time standing man like Max Huber, the Zurich Professor of International Law and former President of the Court of Arbitration, The Hague: "It belongs to the certainty of faith, the revelation that everything the man says, what God's affairs that is necessary and that from the totality of the insights given to him as the believer, through the Holy Spirit led response to each question, find the location and any time he makes any.

Also a consideration of Heidegger's Denkvoraussetzungen leads to similar results. The origin of Heidegger (existential) philosophy can be seen as nothing more than an intense listening to itself be described, to which he made his fundamental experience that is being demonstrated by the fear of nothingness. Despite its historic derived from Kierkegaard's thinking is Heidegger's philosophy so much "philosophy of experience" and also the reader, so much the same basic experience that people who experience this reason not to have made himself, not at all understandable, because they otherwise necessarily unclear. In Heidegger's philosophy overhears their own thinking, I being one's own ego. The method is known to us, it is based on the identification of one's own thinking I am being with one's own ego.

With the insight, however, that Heidegger's statements must be clear for all those outside his own initial experience is fundamental, we touch a new extraordinary problem of our modern culture: that of spiritual "formation of champagne." Indeed, it is always Gleichgestimmtheit in the constitution provided for the reader, so that those in the first enthusiasm can ignite that an unconditional 'yes' Tell marks. The statement accompanying any pedagogical moment is then only in the excitement of that feeling of happiness liable, opinions expressed in conscious clarity to see, as a latent concern below the level of our conscious mind has always been beaten. The perfect understanding with the groups now believe gruff face (like the controversial opinions now abstract painting, Existentialphilosophie strict theology, democracy or Beveridge plan called) is in the method of modern thought justified. Already in the preface to the most disturbing book of the 20th Century, in Spengler "Decline of the Occident" is the sentence: "This book is aimed solely to readers what the word sounds and images as well nachzuerleben understand."

Read more...

philosophy

philosophy (Greek philosophía, literally 'love of wisdom') tries to explain the world and human existence is to interpret and understand. Of the other sciences, it differs in that it does not cover a specific area or a specific methodology is limited, but by the nature of their problems and their particular approach to its wide variety of subject areas is characterized.

The beginnings of philosophical thought in the West go to 6 pre-Christian century. In the ancient philosophy unfolded in systematic and science-oriented thinking of the Occident. Over the centuries the various different methods and disciplines in the world of science and development, directly or indirectly, from philosophy, to some extent, as opposed to irrational or religious world views and mythologies.

Core areas of philosophy, the logic (as the science of logical thinking), ethics (the science of right action) and metaphysics (the science of the first reason of being and reality). Other disciplines are the basic knowledge and scientific theory, which deals with the possibilities of finding profits in general and specifically with the knowledge of the different ways individual sciences.

Read more...

Contemporary Philosophy

Contemporary Philosophy publishes invited and unsolicited articles and reviews in the English language from anywhere in the world. Since the publication vehicle of philosophical organization Reality, Contemporary Philosophical philosophy encourages original thinking in all areas of classical philosophical perspective - speculative, practical and technical - and entertainment for Publication of scientific articles philosophical merit in each of these areas, through the use of natural human reason, clearly and accurately identify, clarify, analyze, and solve major problems of contemporary concern.
While the magazine is interested in disseminating information about the works of the great Philosophers of the past and the cultural contributions to humanity of all Areas of learning, primarily in the assessment of an article is that a work submitted
clearly identify an issue of contemporary concern, the principles of natural reason, which is currently used in order to solve this problem, the method currently employed, the principles must be used and the solution of the problem which is offered.
Review of Application All typescripts typescripts be judged not only on the basis of
their general philosophical value, but also on the originality and success of the Author in the application of course derivable principles of reason to recognize, clarify, analyze, and try to solve with accuracy a major problem of today's concern. After a Review by one or more of the editorial selected unsolicited typescripts undergo Anonymous review of at least three members of the Editorial Board. If it so
requested that efforts be made to anonymous comments to the authors of the
Article rejected.
Letters to the Editor Letters may be published, the philosophical and according to the editorial policy of the manuscripts. The letters should be of interest to Readers, against the opinion of others and promote dialogue. Letters that are used can be processed and an excerpt.
Members Forum Letters to the Members Forum is your address and telephone number. Letters, which can be processed and an excerpt. Article manuscripts of 2000-3000 words are preferred, but also articles of extraordinary Quality of any length will be considered. More articles, if these should be Serialization in the 2 a.m. to 5 p.m. expenditure. A brief (2-3 sentences) summary of Articles must be included. All materials, including the abstract, block bids, and Notes should be double-spaced. All the signs are in the form of footnotes, should be used sparingly, numbered consecutively and at the end of the Manuscript.
References in parentheses are invited to see Kate L. Turabian, A Manual for Writers,
latest edition, for the guidelines. Three copies and a copy on an IBM or Microsoft Word Software are compatible. The author's name should not be limited to the Manuscripts copied, but definitely on the letter.
Manuscripts will not be returned. If an article has been accepted for publication,
contacted the author, so please make sure the package contains your name,
Address and telephone number. This avoids errors in typesetting and minimizes
Cost of producing the magazine. Authors should only take a S.E.S. Postcard if you
immediate confirmation of receipt of their manuscripts.

Read more...

contemporary philosophy of knowledge

the second topic that we discuss are:
Our topic now is the contemporary philosophy of knowledge. I assume that you all have already mastered the mainstreams in that philosophy: positivism and interpretivism. Our first questions, criticizes the position of solipsism (one-self-ism). This school claims that being is knowing. Our second question criticizes the position of atomism or methodological individualism. Be focus.
Albert Muhajir Sholeh said : "one thing i can say that is individualism is god. its means everyone must have his/her personal character! no matter the other will discouraged to us, but the important one is "i as one-self-ism in my self".... confuse sir?
Sakban Rosidi said: "No, I am not confused, but you, since you actually do not know what do you talk. It is getting worse because too many misspellings and syntatic errors in your comment. But let me make it clear. Methodological individualism is not an ideology like individualism. It is a philosopical assumption that by studying the individuals, we can draw a conclusion applicable to collectivity, like group, community or society".
he continued: "Using Jean Jacques Rousseau... Read More’s term, this assumption claims that a group is identical with the sum of individuals, common will is identical with the will of all. In research, they use a questionary for individual to study society. Unfortunately, society is not the same as the sum of individuals. That is the big mistake brought by the methodological individualism. Mau kiasan? Kalau sendiri kamu “malu”, kalau rame-rame “memalukan”, sendiri “takut”, rame-rame “menakutkan”. Persenyawaan telah mengubah sifat dasar keseluruhan. Terus belajar, karena belajar adalah kemuliaan".

Read more...

  © Blogger template Coozie by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP