I think the point Harman misses (or taciternly accepts) is that all great things, all true things have an endless age (or don't have age to be metaphysical)
why do we still talk of Aristotle 2000 years ago?
why do we still talk of Beethoven after 500 600 or so many years ago?
why do we still talk of Darwin 200 years ago?
true, essence cannot be known (or as Godel said is unprovable within the realm of the universe, unless we go outside the universe)
but that doesn't prevent us from thinking/talking about it
I thinks that's what Heidegger was upset about
there is a nothing around the something
science says we are not to talk about the nothing since it's not measurable, let's cut the rest of it
so then science leads to nothing in a systematic way while in the meantime never addressing it
(it's true I'm almost regretting my involvement in this OOO but nothing else to do - like what the linguists did with philosophy)
why do we still talk of Aristotle 2000 years ago?
why do we still talk of Beethoven after 500 600 or so many years ago?
why do we still talk of Darwin 200 years ago?
true, essence cannot be known (or as Godel said is unprovable within the realm of the universe, unless we go outside the universe)
but that doesn't prevent us from thinking/talking about it
I thinks that's what Heidegger was upset about
there is a nothing around the something
science says we are not to talk about the nothing since it's not measurable, let's cut the rest of it
so then science leads to nothing in a systematic way while in the meantime never addressing it
(it's true I'm almost regretting my involvement in this OOO but nothing else to do - like what the linguists did with philosophy)
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου