Basic Notions of Metaphysics: Camera Obscura of Modernity pt. 1
In this podcast we put forward the notion of illusory problems and meaningless questions in philosophy. From the modern standpoint, which we exemplify by Kant’s and Wittgenstein’s positions, the entire history of metaphysics, theology and generally those modes of understanding that are poised to reaching transcendence in any conceivable way is merely a misunderstanding: either a natural illusion of the pure mind (Kant) or merely a case of pathological misuse of language (Wittgenstein).
We juxtapose these modern attempts at euthanasia of everything rooted in the origin of thought to instances of traditional understanding of basic notions of metaphysics we laid out in our previous work, such as: ‘being’, ‘truth’, ‘beautiful’, ’cause and effect’, transcendentals, etc.
Naturally it doesn’t bode well for transcendental philosophy and the philosophy of “linguistic turn”.
Daniel J. Castellano “The Incompleteness of Formal Logic”
Kali Tribune runs on reader’s support. If you found the above informative and/or enlightening, consider supporting us.
That part about the omission of “eimi” is something that even the newest comer to the study of ancient Greek immediately notices (being a cause for significant headaches when reading such a text).
I wonder where these “philosophers” get their main ideas from…
This passage comes to mind while listening to the podcast, and reading Mihai’s comment:
εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς· Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί. ἦραν οὖν λίθους ἵνα βάλωσιν ἐπ’ αὐτόν· Ἰησοῦς δὲ ἐκρύβη καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ. John 8: 58-59
And of course, prior in John 8:12,
Πάλιν οὖν αὐτοῖς ἐλάλησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων· Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου· ὁ ἀκολουθῶν μοὶ οὐ μὴ περιπατήσῃ ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ, ἀλλ’ ἕξει τὸ φῶς τῆς ζωῆς.
“We juxtapose these modern attempts at euthanasia of everything rooted in the origin of thought to instances of traditional understanding of basic notions of metaphysics we laid out in our previous work, such as: ‘being’, ‘truth’, ‘beautiful’, ’cause and effect’, transcendentals, etc. ” – how do we know the origin of thought? We observe practical and pragmatical meaning, use and purpose of language and thought, but it tells us nothing about its “origin”.
I am not sure, but to me it looks like “Traditionalists” simply take Origin of thought etc. is Metaphysical in purely axiomatic way, or dogmatic (from Dogma). But axiom is not same as “obvious”. Obvious is only practical value of thought and language, while the Metaphysical origin is something that needs yet to be proven. If it is “beyond” proof – well, then it is a matter of belief I suppose or something on that level. So, I am not an expert, but I cannot avoid noticing this way in which you as Traditionalist take Mataphysics as the starting point and then all fall neatly in place. But we can take anything as starting point, e.g. “matter” and it will also fall neatly in place, but for a materialist. But our starting point should not depend on our desired outcome of certain chain of thought.
Just a few probably too shallow thoughts though..