In order to awaken thought from such a sleep -- deep that it paradoxically seems to her waking, because it confuses the whirling motion of dogmatism, in his doubling seeking to rely on himself, with restless agility actually philosophical thought-in order to to awaken it to its original capabilities, there is no other means, as to destroy the base of the whole anthropological "quadrangle". In any case, it is obvious that this boil down all attempts to think differently -- whether we are talking about. to cover the entire field of anthropological and interrupting based on the fact that it speaks, to detect a purified ontology or a radical thought of a kind of being, or about that, going beyond not only psychologism and historicism, but all concrete forms of the anthropological prejudice, try again to raise the question about the boundaries of thinking, again linking it thus with the project of the universal criticism of reason. Perhaps the first attempt at eradication of Anthropology, without which, certainly, not enough modern thought can be found in experience Nietzsche: through philological criticism, through the biologism a special kind Nietzsche has reached the point where man and God springline each other, where the death of God is synonymous the disappearance of man and where the coming of Superman rather, the inevitability of death. Thus Nietzsche, predicting the future is us, both as outcome and as the goal, marks the threshold beyond which only and is able to start think modern philosophy; there is no doubt that he will long to influence its development. If the opening of Return-is the end philosophy, the end of man-is the return of the beginning of philosophy. In our day to think only in empty space, where there is no person. This emptiness does not mean lack and not required to fill gap. It is only the deployment of space where finally you can again start to think.
what I can hope?) he added another one, the ultimate question, which immediately proved to be dependable the first three: what is man?1 As we have seen, this question always arises in the mind with the beginning of the XIX century: it implicitly and pre-mixes the empirical and the transcendental, the gap which is shown by Kant. This question introduces a reflection of a mixed type, which characteristic of modern philosophy. However, her concern for the person advocated it, not only in words but throughout her Paphos itself is her desire to identify a person as a living being as the worker of the individual speaker or of the subject-all this is only for starry-eyed simpletons said about the long-awaited the coming of the Kingdom of man; in fact, everything is more prosaic and less vysokovatye: we are talking about the empirical-critical doubling, by which aim to present a person, rooted in nature, sharing or speech as a justification for it own final life. In this too the Crease transcendental function tries to cover its power network inert and grey space of empiricist, and on the other hand ... themselves empirical content obselete, little by little straightened and straightened and then submit the speech, which the difference in the distance to their transcendental claims. Thus, in this Fold philosophy falls asleep again -- only not Dogmatism, and Anthropology. All empirical knowledge, regarding the person becomes a field of possible philosophizing, which must be explained rationale knowledge, its limits and boundaries and, finally, the truth of all the truth. The anthropological configuration of modern philosophy suggests doubling dogmatism, spread it out over two at various levels, relying on each other and at the same time limiting each other: critical analysis of what is people inherently. becomes Analytics of what is generally maybe this human experience.
2 comments:
In order to awaken thought from such a sleep --
deep that it paradoxically seems to her waking,
because it confuses the whirling motion of dogmatism, in his
doubling seeking to rely on himself, with restless
agility actually philosophical thought-in order to
to awaken it to its original capabilities, there is no other
means, as to destroy the base of the whole anthropological
"quadrangle". In any case, it is obvious that this
boil down all attempts to think differently -- whether we are talking about.
to cover the entire field of anthropological and interrupting
based on the fact that it speaks, to detect a
purified ontology or a radical thought of a kind of being, or about
that, going beyond not only psychologism and historicism,
but all concrete forms of the anthropological prejudice,
try again to raise the question about the boundaries of thinking, again
linking it thus with the project of the universal criticism of reason.
Perhaps the first attempt at eradication of Anthropology, without which,
certainly, not enough modern thought can be found in
experience Nietzsche: through philological criticism, through the biologism
a special kind Nietzsche has reached the point where man and God
springline each other, where the death of God is synonymous
the disappearance of man and where the coming of Superman
rather, the inevitability of death. Thus
Nietzsche, predicting the future is us, both as outcome and as
the goal, marks the threshold beyond which only and is able to start
think modern philosophy; there is no doubt that he will long
to influence its development. If the opening of Return-is the end
philosophy, the end of man-is the return of the beginning of philosophy. In
our day to think only in empty space, where there is no
person. This emptiness does not mean lack and not required to fill
gap. It is only the deployment of space where finally
you can again start to think.
what I can
hope?) he added another one, the ultimate question, which
immediately proved to be dependable the first three: what is man?1
As we have seen, this question always arises in the mind with
the beginning of the XIX century: it implicitly and pre-mixes
the empirical and the transcendental, the gap which is shown by Kant.
This question introduces a reflection of a mixed type, which
characteristic of modern philosophy. However, her concern for
the person advocated it, not only in words but throughout her
Paphos itself is her desire to identify a person as a living
being as the worker of the individual speaker or of the subject-all
this is only for starry-eyed simpletons said about the long-awaited
the coming of the Kingdom of man; in fact, everything is more
prosaic and less vysokovatye: we are talking about the empirical-critical
doubling, by which aim to present a person,
rooted in nature, sharing or speech as a justification for it
own final life. In this too the Crease
transcendental function tries to cover its power network
inert and grey space of empiricist, and on the other hand ...
themselves empirical content obselete, little by little
straightened and straightened and then submit the speech, which
the difference in the distance to their transcendental claims. Thus, in
this Fold philosophy falls asleep again -- only
not Dogmatism, and Anthropology. All empirical knowledge,
regarding the person becomes a field of possible
philosophizing, which must be explained rationale
knowledge, its limits and boundaries and, finally, the truth of all
the truth. The anthropological configuration of modern philosophy
suggests doubling dogmatism, spread it out over two
at various levels, relying on each other and at the same time
limiting each other: critical analysis of what is
people inherently. becomes Analytics of what is generally
maybe this human experience.
Post a Comment