Ch 6 A Case study in misunderstanding: Heidegger and Carnap Flashcards
(15 cards)
How does the author expand on the line of thinking ie empirical science and romantic hermeneutic about their being two cultures with a specific example?
Heidigger v Carnap
Why is this important.
H inspired gadamer and Arendt and Sartre Lacan Foucault and deride. US analytic philosophy post WW2 can be described as post-carnapian. Just as UK post-wittgenstein. insofar as analytic v continental can be traced back to this Stand off it is worth looking at.
How did Nietzsche define metaphysics
the sundering of the pre-philosophical world into being and seeming, reality and appearance.
In what sense did Heidegger want to return to a more Aristotelian understanding of metaphysics
Heidegger sought to return to a more Aristotelian understanding of metaphysics by focusing on “being” (ousia) as “presence” and “being-in-the-world” rather than the abstract, static, and primarily “ontotheological” interpretations that dominated medieval and modern philosophy. Here are the key ways he did this:
1. Restoring the Primacy of Being as Experience (Being-in-the-World):
Heidegger believed that modern metaphysics, influenced by Descartes and later philosophers, turned being into a mere object of abstract knowledge (a “being” rather than “Being”). By returning to Aristotle, particularly the Nicomachean Ethics and Physics, Heidegger emphasized the dynamic and relational nature of being, which is always already involved in a world (being-in-the-world), rather than a separate, isolated substance.
2. **Recovering the Concept of Potentiality (Dynamis):
Heidegger was influenced by Aristotle’s concept of dynamis (potential) and energeia (actualization), understanding being as a process rather than a fixed state. He applied this to human existence (Dasein), which is always a project, a possibility, rather than a fully determined essence.
3. Critiquing the Ontotheological Tradition:
Heidegger argued that after Aristotle, metaphysics became “ontotheological,” meaning it conflated the study of being with theology (God as the highest being). He sought to recover a more fundamental question of being (Seinsfrage) without immediately reducing it to divine or ultimate beings.
4. Reinterpreting Truth as Aletheia (Unconcealment):
Heidegger’s idea of truth (aletheia) as “unconcealment” was also inspired by Aristotle’s sense of knowledge as a process of bringing things into understanding. This contrasts with the modern view of truth as mere correspondence between thought and reality.
Would you like me to briefly explain how these Aristotelian elements are developed in Being and Time?
What was the ontological difference?
Heidegger is concerned with being as such prior to its reference to any specific realm of beings or things. The maintenance of this gap between being as such and particular realms of beings is what Heidegger calls ‘the ontological difference’.
How does Heidegger view past philosophers take in being?
he believes that every philosophical system, from Plato to the present, in seeking to determine the meaning of being as such, has passed over the radicality of the question of being and the intrinsic link that this question has to the theme of time – hence the title of his magnum opus, Being and Time.
How did past philosophers deal with being?
The previous history of metaphysics has attempted to answer the being-question in various ways: for Plato, it is answered through the notion of ‘form’, namely that knowledge of a thing is knowledge of the form of a thing; for Aristotle, it is expressed with the notion of ‘substance’; for Thomas Aquinas, it is answered with reference to the ‘self-caused cause’, that is God; for Hegel, it is ‘Spirit’; for Nietzsche, it is ‘will to power’; and so on. For Heidegger, the history of metaphysics is ‘the history of being’, a series of answers to the basic question of philosophy that extends from Plato to the inversion of Platonism in Nietzsche. Therefore, to raise the question of being radically is to place metaphysics in question and to pass over into its ‘overcoming’. However, although Heidegger and Carnap both use the formula ‘overcoming metaphysics’, what they mean by it is strikingly different.
Explain how to Heidegger science must be based in metsphysics which arises out of nothing
In Heidegger’s view, science must be based in metaphysics because metaphysics provides the foundational understanding of Being—the fundamental nature of existence—from which all other knowledge arises.
- Metaphysics as the Ground of Science:
•For Heidegger, metaphysics is not just an abstract philosophical discipline; it is the fundamental inquiry into the nature of Being itself.
•Science, in his view, is a mode of revealing the world, but it operates within a framework of assumptions about reality, knowledge, and existence—assumptions that are themselves metaphysical.
•Without a grounding in metaphysics, science lacks an understanding of what it means for things to exist or be known. - Metaphysics Arising Out of “Nothing”:
•Heidegger famously explores the concept of “nothing” in his essay “What is Metaphysics?” where he suggests that metaphysics arises out of an encounter with “nothing”.
•This “nothing” is not mere emptiness but a fundamental experience of the absence of beings, which forces us to confront the question of Being itself.
•Through the experience of anxiety, where beings seem to recede, we are confronted with the “nothing”—an encounter that reveals the mystery of Being.
•This confrontation with “nothing” is what drives metaphysical inquiry and gives rise to the fundamental questions that underpin all scientific exploration. - Why Science Cannot Avoid Metaphysics:
•Even though science seeks to be purely empirical and objective, it is always grounded in an implicit understanding of what exists (ontology) and what can be known (epistemology)—both of which are metaphysical.
•For Heidegger, any claim to scientific knowledge already presupposes a prior understanding of Being and truth—a domain that belongs to metaphysics.
Would you like me to break down this concept in even simpler, more practical terms?
Why did Carnap say metaphysicians are musicians without musical ability
Carnap’s remark that “metaphysicians are musicians without musical ability” appears in his 1932 paper “The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language.” In this work, Carnap, a leading figure of the Vienna Circle and logical positivism, argues that much of traditional metaphysics is meaningless because it lacks empirical verifiability and logical clarity.
Meaning of the Quote
•Musicians without musical ability: Just as someone without musical talent might try to compose music but only produce noise, Carnap views metaphysicians as attempting to express profound truths but instead producing meaningless statements.
•Lack of Cognitive Content: For Carnap, meaningful language is either empirically verifiable (science) or logically/analytically true (mathematics and logic). Metaphysics, in his view, is neither. It uses words that sound profound but lack clear meaning because they cannot be verified by experience or clarified by logic.
•Pseudostatements: Carnap claims that metaphysical statements are “pseudostatements” — they appear to be meaningful but are actually empty because they do not pass the test of logical analysis.
What would Heidegger say is the mood that reveals the nothing?
Heidegger would say that anxiety (Angst) is the mood that reveals the Nothing (das Nichts). In his essay “What is Metaphysics?”, Heidegger argues that while ordinary fear is directed at something specific, anxiety is a mood in which we confront the totality of existence without any specific object. This confrontation with the totality makes the Nothing manifest, exposing the groundlessness of existence and revealing the contingency of being.
What did Carnap say about metaphysics in 1932
Carnap’s main claim in his 1932 paper is that metaphysical statements are neither logically nor empirically verifiable. For example, if I say that ‘anxiety reveals the being of being human’, then the logical positivist will ask, is this proposition logically verifiable? No, because it is neither a tautology nor a contradiction. So, is it then empirically verifiable? No, because ‘being’ is not a given fact like a jacaranda tree. Therefore the proposition is meaningless. And
What are the relationships between Nietzsche, Heidegger and Carnap?
This passage suggests a complex philosophical relationship between Nietzsche, Heidegger, and the logical positivist philosopher Rudolf Carnap. To unpack this:
- Carnap’s Praise for Nietzsche:
•Rudolf Carnap was a leading figure in the Vienna Circle, a group of philosophers who championed logical positivism, which emphasized logical analysis, empirical verification, and the rejection of metaphysics as meaningless.
•Despite this anti-metaphysical stance, Carnap reportedly praised Nietzsche. This might seem surprising because Nietzsche is often viewed as a critic of conventional philosophy, including the kind of logic-based thinking Carnap advocated.
•The passage suggests that this praise is “revealing” because it may indicate an underlying philosophical connection between Nietzsche and logical analysis, despite their surface differences. - The Heideggerian Perspective:
•Martin Heidegger, a German existentialist philosopher, was a profound critic of traditional metaphysics and saw Nietzsche as a pivotal figure in the history of metaphysical thought.
•A Heideggerian might argue that logical analysis (as promoted by Carnap) is just one phase in the larger history of metaphysics. Specifically, it would be a “sub-Nietzschean moment”—a derivative or lesser part of Nietzsche’s broader critique of Western philosophy.
•For Heidegger, Nietzsche marks the culmination of metaphysics, but also its potential overcoming, because he exposes the fundamental assumptions of Western thought, such as the concept of Being. - Nietzsche’s View on Being:
•The passage quotes Nietzsche’s Twilight of the Idols: “But Heracleitus will always be right in this, that Being is an empty fiction.” This means:
•Nietzsche aligns with the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who saw reality as a constant flux or becoming, rather than a static “Being.”
•For Nietzsche, the concept of Being is a human invention or “fiction”—a static concept that misrepresents the fundamentally dynamic nature of existence. - Logical Positivism as a Preliminary to Nietzsche:
•Although Nietzsche would likely have dismissed logical positivism (as it is rigid, logical, and rejects metaphysics), the passage suggests that he might have seen it as a preparatory step.
•This means that logical positivism, by rejecting metaphysical claims as meaningless, clears the ground for a more profound critique of metaphysics, which is Nietzsche’s goal.
•Nietzsche’s own philosophy goes beyond mere rejection—it aims to overturn Platonism, the traditional Western focus on unchanging forms or truths, by emphasizing the primacy of life, change, and becoming.
In Summary:
This passage suggests a nuanced view of the relationship between Nietzsche, Heidegger, and logical positivism:
•Carnap’s praise for Nietzsche hints at an unexpected connection between logical analysis and Nietzsche’s critique of metaphysics.
•Heidegger might argue that logical analysis is a limited or derivative aspect of Nietzsche’s challenge to traditional metaphysics.
•Nietzsche would see logical positivism not as an end but as a step toward his own radical rethinking of philosophy, which rejects the concept of static “Being” in favor of dynamic “becoming.”
Would you like me to further clarify how Carnap’s logical analysis could be considered “sub-Nietzschean” in Heideggerian terms?
Why did Wittgenstein think he knew what Heidegger meant?
Wittgenstein thought he knew what Heidegger meant because he believed that Heidegger was attempting to express something deeply significant but essentially beyond the limits of clear, everyday language. Specifically, Wittgenstein recognized that Heidegger’s exploration of fundamental human experiences—such as anxiety, being, and nothingness—was an effort to articulate aspects of human existence that cannot be fully captured through logical or empirical language.
Wittgenstein, especially in his later work (Philosophical Investigations), was deeply aware of the limitations of language and the ways it can both reveal and obscure meaning. He thought he understood Heidegger because he saw a shared concern: both recognized that certain profound aspects of human experience are “shown” rather than “said.” For Wittgenstein, such ineffable aspects belong to the realm of what can only be “shown” rather than explained, much like the mystical or the ethical. However, one should not imagine that Wittgenstein was some sort of happy Heideggerian. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is clear that his comment entails a significant critique of Heidegger. That is, Wittgenstein thinks he knows what Heidegger means by being and anxiety, but implies that such things cannot be said without falling into nonsense.
How does Carnap relate to Wittgenstein
So, if Carnap’s attempted overcoming of metaphysics is based on the views of the early Wittgenstein, then the later Wittgenstein represents what might be called ‘an overcoming of overcoming’, where we would put aside the dogmas of logical analysis and return to ordinary language and the human social life expressed in that language in all its messy but rich everydayness.
