On my first charge, I quote the book pro-Nazi "100 views on Hitler", which quoted the following opinion on the Führer of the Nazi party member and philosophaster Martin Heidegger: "The National Socialist Revolution is not simply the seizure of power by another party that have grown for this purpose. On the contrary, this revolution brings the total change of our German existence ... Seek not the rules of your being in the dogmas and ideas. The Fuehrer himself, and he alone, is the German reality of today and tomorrow, it's their law ... not the dogma or rational truths, must be constructed in standards of conduct. Today and always, the Führer is the only one qualified to decide what is good and what is bad. The Führer is our only law. "Neither Goebbels, hear!. With respect to his pseudo-philosophy (or rather anti-philosophy) we know that existentialism is a variant of subjective idealism that irrational part of the unit would be subject-object embodied in a "being" irrational, because to acquire consciousness " existence, "the subject must live a" limit situation "between life and death, being the" intuition "opposed to reason the means to access the world of" existence. "Review: Heidegger's subjective idealism is false, reductio ad absurdum that leads to solipsism (only myself) and that end is unrealistic and contradictory. It is also wrong to claim that external reality depends on the intuition or thought of subject when the subject itself is a natural part of that reality is governed by objective laws. If the world and its laws were a subjective construction of the subject, suffice it mere desire to bracket the world's laws, but nobody in practice such a serious blunder, and that no one crosses a street when a vehicle passes "imagined by the subject." There will be something that this "subjective fiction" hit him and kill. Of course, no one really believes that there are no objective laws because, after all, nobody is as parallel as to throw a 40 th floor to show how "subjective" which is the law of gravity, right?. With respect intuitionalism irrationalism that exudes old-fashioned smelling Heideggerian existentialism, we can say that it is wrong to claim that without reason and logic can penetrate the reality that the scientific method, which is the only one that allows access to the world, is rational-logical (to empirical pair) as shown by the fact that science be used concepts, judgments and chains of reasoning that are logical forms, together with the logical connectives "and" (disjunction), "or" (conjunction), "if .. . then ", etc. Also used in science logic operations of deduction, induction, analogy, etc. and logical inference rules like modus ponens" and "modus tollens" etc. And to the same sophists irrationalists use reason and logic in everyday life when deduced consequences (logical deduction), making comparisons (analogies), etc. and, of course, these parents kittens who preach without reason, but do not practice strictly obey the principles of logic, since the most stupid or irrational whistleblowers (or almost, because in that tribe is everything) believe that the passage of micro-bus that costs, say 380 pesos, and it cost 700 pesos at a time, and this violates the principle of non-contradiction (p ~ p = F) and it would be cheating too moron driver. That's not thinking about it! Right?. Before sacrifice all that spit and pretend taradeces think before I ripped my bucks, more missing man !;-). With regard to the "intuition" or "direct contemplation" to claim that intuition is in conflict with the reason is purely free and ad-hoc, as philosophers like Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, etc.., although the differing discursive thought, not opposed to it as do the irrationality. In fact, Locke believed that the ideas of intellectual intuition were taken from the experience, and is irrelevant to science and scientific philosophy what the context of discovery of a thesis (a dream, imagination, a metaphysical belief, etc. ), since what matters is the context of justification (Reichenbach) in which verifies the authenticity of the hipótesis.Con about that nonsense that only they are aware of existing in an extreme situation, it is easily disproved by asking anyone who travels on the street if it is "aware of existing ": If you answer" yes "this refutes the dogma of Heidegger charlatan because this guy is aware that there is not in an" extreme situation "(unless someone thinks that making a simple and stupid question is an experience" the limit. ") following the" logic "of Heidegger (to call it somehow) he too was aware of" existing "given that when he wrote boutade that he was not close to death ... unless, of course, that his editor as threatening to break the contract if they did not produce a new tome unintelligible to the ignorant facherío consumption, look at those things are the bread of life and death, eh:-DA the way, the essence of existence is not a situation to the limit as Heidegger argues that chupaflautas, which is nothing more than rationalization, in a language of images, the fear engendered by capitalist reality (uncertainty work, fear of the future, etc..), but the subject, as all objective existence is material and matter is what actually exists (to the brain and the body of this charlatanazo was not an abstract matter and "Being-in-the-world"), and the materialist philosophy (a philosophy and true philosophy) is the only one who can deal successfully with the irrationality crap they were (and are) the breeding ground of the Nazi-idiotología Fascist and other trifles as the postmodern irrationalism conservative and pro-capitalist.
0 comments:
Post a Comment