Philosophie ist oft unverständlich Philosophy often is incomprehensible
Philosophie nur für Philosophen? Philosophy just for philosophers?
The following essay extension is now based on this: Heidegger’s “Nothing“ is only not (otherwise it would be a describable something = not nothing, contradiction no. 1). Consequence: Every something-element, which – related to itself – will be there, is there or was there, fills the concept of the one “Being“ as the universal immaterial element of the one “Entirety“ (otherwise this “Entirety“ would not be the entirety, contradiction no. 2). Without temporality (been, existing, becoming) and spatiality (here, there, anywhere else) have-been-there, being-there, coming-into-being are excluded (otherwise “existence“ would be without when and where, contradiction no. 3). “When“ and “Where“ are valid relatively; a sun-event-now becomes later the transported “now“ for an inhabitant of earth (otherwise sun = observer would be valid, contradiction No. 4). Past will come, future has already been – so an earth inhabitant can follow intergalactic events whose beginnings and conclusions already took place before light year billions (otherwise spatio-temporally necessary being one after the other would be superfluous, contradiction No. 5). Ontologically motivated philosophical occupation must not ignore the physical-relativistic reality, it is presupposed and contributes to present a conclusive result of thinking plausibly.
Moment 0 folgt Moment -1 Moment 0 follows moment-1
Basis falsch, alles falsch Basis wrong, everything wrong
Everybody sees the limits of his field of vision as the limits of the world, says Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). Everyone hears only what he understands, writes Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832). From Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) we read that one must be silent about what one cannot speak about, and that he does not claim novelty in detail at all, why he also does not give any sources, because it is indifferent to him whether what he has thought has already been thought by another before him. Many centuries before Wittgenstein many people have the meager circle of experience of their everyday life already in great thinking processes overstepped in order to make plausible the vastness and depth of the world reality surrounding mankind. The overwhelming majority of contemporaries in all generations are content with the everyday contact experienced in the respective limited social circle. This will and must remain so. How would be fulfilled the practical sense of manual, intellectual, social activity if everybody would have to deal every day with ontological, social-scientific or the methodological norms of the practice of knowledge and the questions about their explanations. Nevertheless, mental expansion undoubtedly frees from mental narrowness. Philosophical statements are generally received relatively rarely, philosophical language is considered incomprehensible, it is often couched in terms that are alien to the normal linguistic habit of comprehension. If the ability and inclination of an ordinary citizen to delve into philosophical statements are present, then this devotion can often not develop properly. The fulfillment of the private sense of life is determined by the necessity to secure one’s own economic existence through professional activity. Philosophy only for philosophers? That would be equivalent to technology only for technicians. Their focus, however, is on the usefulness to be gained and mostly also on the linguistic comprehensibility of the general user of the technology.
Die Schule von Athen, Raffael (1483-1520),
1510-1511 geschaffen in der Stanza della Segnatura, Vatikan.
The School of Athens, Raphael (1483-1520),
1510-1511 created in the Stanza della Segnatura, Vatican.
School of philosophers
Ontologie, Lehre des Seins Ontology, teaching of the Being
Phantasie darf auch irreal denken Phantasy even may think irrational
Philosophical thinking contains dispute and contradiction. The complexity of the history of philosophy requires serious study in order to gain an objective overview and to formulate subjective criticism, to think for oneself, so that it becomes a thinking that is on historical and contemporary philosophical statements. It shall be repeated here: I can think what I want, says Immanuel Kant, if only I do not contradict myself. Exactly this should apply to all science, also to those physicists whose singularity theory is self-contradictory and thus ontologically untenable. It is not only the task of philosophy to disprove self-contradictory statements, but of every science, because one must attach importance to the consistency of his statements. Ideologies can produce powerful buildings of thought, but in the very narrow view of it the complexity of the outside world is ignored and their dissenters are not infrequently deprived of their free dignity, even physically. In natural sciences named as exact one works outside of real experiments and meaningful hypotheses and theories as well sustainably with models of thought, whose ideal approach can already be contradictory in itself. Thus the assertion of a singularity as a „world origin big bang“ is inconsistent because the time-spatial necessity as a precondition for all events is ignored. Cosmogonical-speculative conceptions of physicists exist several times, for example nebular-, rotation-, turbulence hypotheses. Pascual Jordan (1902-1980) designed as a hypothesis the time moment zero, when a neutron pair was created at the beginning of the world and expanded with the velocity of light. Time moment zero, if meant like thermometer reading zero degrees, does not exclude a temporal before, of course, but it is to be asked, what moves physicists to go into philosophical assumptions, instead of philosophical consistency (logic), which is inherent in the natural laws. For physicists world reality should not “end“ on causeless effects (neutron pair “formation“), the cause belongs to the effect and this cause was effect of a cause – and so forth.
NICHTS? 6 Buchstaben, sonst nichts NOTHING? 7 letters, nothing else
Karl R. Popper demands the falsification of every scientific statement until it is no longer false, but as certain and conclusively true in itself. “What one cannot speak about, one must keep silent about“... ? In general, only some few people make no comment on and too much is said hastily. Little thinking precision gives birth to a lot of prejudice. We all have prejudices, says Popper, but to think logically? Albert Menne (1923-1990) brings this home to us with unambiguous clarity. Technicians learn what it means when system and device functions have been developed logically wrong. As strict judges of technical functionality we have the laws of nature, says Heinrich Stork (1931-1997). Imagination may undoubtedly have unreal thinking, from which one or the other amusement may cause us pleasure. But the spatiotemporal course of material reality of cause and effect is rationally and logically determined. But also the variety of the difference of human, means: subjective truth assertions is nothing new. Truth? To grasp world reality in order to describe world details reality – this can only be the better alternative to making attempts at explanations to maintain inductively that a whole exist as the total of its parts which are not entirely known.
Aber auch keine Lampe mal leuchten lassen But also feel free to let once shine no lamp