“postponed indefinitely”
Two Heidegger Books on Language1
“pre-draft before reading”
One of my birthday presents was that I was allowed to pick out any books I wanted from a bookstore.
Given by current obsession over language I wanted to grab something form Wittgenstein, but he was nowhere to be found. So I had to settle with Heidegger.
The only problem I have with Heidegger is that most translations have too much flourish; which might just be a failure of the English language. That isn’t a problem cause I’m still interested to see what is in those books and what connections I can make between the two thinkers.
Maybe it is a bit perjorous to say, but from a 21st century standpoint, they were discussing topics we have a “clearer” understanding on2.
What is “thinking”
“Thinking is not having an opinion… not representing or having an idea of a state of affiars (early Wittegenstein)… not racio-nation logic (Piercian deductive/inductive/abductive… not simply critical thinking)”
The ability to distinguish between “sense” and “nonsense” has been a long-standing aim in philosophy. There have been discussions on a metaphysical level from “realism” to “anti-realism”, on a logical level in the different kinds of “formal logc”, on a epistemological level in the form of “empiricism” or “positivism” which circles back to metaphysical claims, and lastly rests upon the linuigistic layer3.
I have a slight suspicion it will circle back to saying the things he said aren’t thinking were thinking after all.
Poetry, Language, Thought
“the quote about things and ultimate things”
Things and ultimate things. Sometimes I feel concerned in the fact that I can lucidly arrive at what is being said or conveyed. What Heidegger says here kind of tracks Wittgensteins early “picture theory” approach and gets at his “language games” concept.
Ordinary things as in the quote like “airplanes” or “radios” generate a very material picture in our minds. Surely we know what an “airplane” is, if not by form; by function.
Ultimate things as in the quote like “death” or “justice” don’t really have a “strict definition”. I’ve written probably many blogs reflecting on how this is a problem in politics, social science, psychology, and data science, because ultimate things all need to be “reified” or “defined” in the observable world to have discourse.
But to say “justice” is “one thing” is different than describing a “table” as “a thing”.
“the quote about the painting being a symbol”
I thought about art interpretation and symbolism before in a [blog post], but it is until recently that I got a sufficient understanding of what “interpretation” and “symbolism” mean in a formal sense.
I think Heidegger is wrong here if we consider the chinese character language. Chinese is a “logographic” language.