Shattering Presence: Being as Change, Time as the Sudden Instant in Heidegger's 1930–31 Seminar on Plato's Parmenides

González, Francisco J.

doi:10.1353/hph.2019.0027

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the few commentaries on Heidegger's lectures on Plato's Parmenides, a common reading tends to identify a Platonic argument that sacrifices its Platonism. The exaiphnēs (ἐξαίφνης), translated by Gonzalez (2019) as the 'all-ofa-sudden', is the temporal becoming of the unity and the plurality of the One, thus undermining the metaphysics of presence. For Gonzalez, 'Far from being understood as an eidos separate from the plurality of things and itself existing as something present-at-hand, the one is here being thought as "change" or "transition" that as such is inherently relational'.…”

Section: Heidegger's Reading Of Platomentioning

confidence: 99%

Heidegger’s Answer to Plato’s Parmenides

Thatcher

2023

SOPHIA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plato’s dialogue Parmenides remains one of—if not, the—most perplexing text in the Platonic corpus. Specifically, it examines the difficulties surrounding the concepts of unity, multiplicity, and Being that are required for participation in the Ideas. One of the problems forced upon the young Socrates by Parmenides and Zeno in the second half of the dialogue concerns the relationship between Being (ὄν) and the One (ἕν), namely, how defensible is the oneness, or the unity, of the Idea if it also partakes of Being? The text culminates in an aporia as to how to articulate the difference between the One (ἕν) and the many (πολλά), since if the one is, it becomes many. How do many beings share in the one mode of Being? Crucially, how are we to articulate the difference between the One and the many, or Being and beings? Where Plato’s answer invoking the enigmatic concept ‘exaiphnēs’ (ἐξαίφνης), the temporal becoming of the unity and plurality of the One, seems to contradict the privileging of presence that Heidegger charges him with, he nonetheless fails to offer an understanding of difference that has neither Being nor unity. I argue that Heidegger’s engagement with the problem of the ontological difference, and its development into the identification of Being with difference itself, offers solutions to this aporia in Plato’s Parmenides by addressing a difference that is irreducible to the one or the many, the relational or the derivative. This has significant consequences for understanding Heidegger’s critique of Plato as not just consisting of the privileging of presence but also the failure to respond to the problem of difference.

show abstract

Section: Heidegger's Reading Of Platomentioning

confidence: 99%

Heidegger’s Answer to Plato’s Parmenides

Thatcher

2023

SOPHIA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…II TRUTH AS "ALETHEIA": DEEPENING HEIDEGGER'S "DIALECTICS OF THE ORIGIN" AS TO HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY INTO THE PYTHAGOREANS, OR BACK TO THE HIDDEN BEGINNING OF PHILOSOPHY, "SUNK INTO OBLIVION" One might say that "Heidegger II's" (i.e., after the "turn") philosophical worldview will be now discussed instead of "Heidegger I's" meant above, though in the same context of ontomathematics. The approach can be briefly concentrated on Heidegger's destruction of the history of philosophy investigating the origin of Western philosophy from Plato and Aristotle 6 6 There exists a series of papers considering Heideger's reinterpretation of both Plato and Aristotle (e.g., Montgomery 2020;Chamberlain 2019;Gonzalez 2019;2019a;2018;Choi, Dattilo 2017;Lee 2016;Kockelman 2015;McNeill 2015;Adluri, Brogan 2013;Weidenfeld 2011;Jaran 2010;Keane 2010;Phillips 2009;Gonzalez 2008a;McGuirk 2008;Wolff 2008;Duro 2007;Brogan 2005;Bowler 2008;Hayes 2007;Kirkland 2007;Kress 2006;Chan 2005;Elden 2005;Wrathall 2004;Smith 2003;Baruchello 2001;Elliott 2000;Glazebrook 2000;Hanley 1999;McNeill 1999;Warnek 1997;Protevi 1994;Baur 1992;Bernasconi 1990;Makkreel 1990;Eiland 1989;Fóti 198...…”

Section: Instead Of Introduction: Heidegger's Distinction Between The...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hilbert mathematics versus (or rather “without”) Gödel mathematics: V. Ontomathematics!

Penchev

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper is the final, fifth part of a series of studies introducing the new conceptions of“Hilbert mathematics” and “ontomathematics”. The specific subject of the present investigation is theproper philosophical sense of both, including philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of physics notless than the traditional “first philosophy” (as far as ontomathematics is a conservative generalization ofontology as well as of Heidegger’s “fundamental ontology” though in a sense) and history of philosophy(deepening Heidegger’s destruction of it from the pre-Socratics to the Pythagoreans). Husserl’sphenomenology and Heidegger’s derivative “fundamental ontology” as well as his later doctrine after the“turn” are the starting point of the research as established and well known approaches relative to thenewly introduced conception of ontomathematics, even more so that Husserl himself started criticizing his“Philosophy of arithmetic” as too naturalistic and psychological turning to “Logical investigations” andthe foundations of phenomenology. Heidegger’s “Aletheia” is also interpreted ontomathematically: as arelation of locality and nonlocality, respectively as a motion from nonlocality to locality if both arephysically considered. Aristotle’s ontological revision of Plato’s doctrine is “destructed” further from thepre-Socratics' “Logos” or Heideger’s “Language” (after the “turn”) to the Pythagoreans “Numbers” or“Arithmetics” as an inherent and fundamental philosophical doctrine. Then, a leap to contemporaryphysics elucidates the essence of ontomathematics overcoming the Cartesian abyss inherited from Plato’sopposition of “ideas” versus “things”, and now unifying physics and mathematics, particularly allowingfor the “creation from nothing” instead of the quasi-scientific myth of the “Big Bang”. Furthermore,ontomathematics needs another interpretation of arithmetic, propositional logic and set theory in thefoundations of mathematics, where the latter two ones are both identified with Boolean algebra, and theformer is considered to be a “half of Boolean algebra” in the exact meaning to be equated to it afterdoubling by a dual anti-isometric counterpart of Peano arithmetic. That unified algebraic realization of thefoundations of mathematics is related to Hilbert mathematics in both “narrow and wide senses” where thelatter is isomorphic to the qubit Hilbert space, thus underlying all the physical world by the newlyintroduced substance of quantum information being physically dimensionless and generalizing classicalinformation measured in bits. The substance of information, whether classical or quantum, visualizes theway of the unification of physics and mathematics by merging their foundations in Hilbert arithmetic andHilbert mathematics: thus how ontomathetics is a “first philosophy”. The relation of ontomathematics tothe Socratic “human problematics”, furthermore being fundamental for Western philosophy in Modernity,is discussed. Ontomathematics implies its “substitution” by abstract information (or by “subjectlesschoice” relevant to it), thus “obliterating the human outline on the ocean beach sand” (by MichelFoucault’s metaphor). A reflection back from the viewpoint of mathematic to Western philosophy as thephilosophy of locality ends the study.

show abstract

“…II TRUTH AS "ALETHEIA": DEEPENING HEIDEGGER'S "DIALECTICS OF THE ORIGIN" AS TO HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY INTO THE PYTHAGOREANS, OR BACK TO THE HIDDEN BEGINNING OF PHILOSOPHY, "SUNK INTO OBLIVION" One might say that "Heidegger II's" (i.e., after the "turn") philosophical worldview will be now discussed instead of "Heidegger I's" meant above, though in the same context of ontomathematics. The approach can be briefly concentrated on Heidegger's destruction of the history of philosophy investigating the origin of Western philosophy from Plato and Aristotle 6 6 There exists a series of papers considering Heideger's reinterpretation of both Plato and Aristotle (e.g., Montgomery 2020;Chamberlain 2019;Gonzalez 2019;2019a;Choi, Dattilo 2017;Lee 2016;Kockelman 2015;McNeill 2015;Adluri, Brogan 2013;Weidenfeld 2011;Jaran 2010;Keane 2010;Phillips 2009;Gonzalez 2008a;McGuirk 2008;Wolff 2008;Duro 2007;Brogan 2005;Bowler 2008;Hayes 2007;Kirkland 2007;Kress 2006;Chan 2005;Elden 2005;Wrathall 2004;Smith 2003;Baruchello 2001;Elliott 2000;Glazebrook 2000;Hanley 1999;McNeill 1999;Snyder 1997;Warnek 1997;Protevi 1994;Baur 1992;Bernasconi 1990;Makkreel 1990;Eiland 1989;Fóti 1985;Walz 1981;…”

Section: Instead Of Introduction: Heidegger's Distinction Between The...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hilbert mathematics versus (or rather “without”) Gödel mathematics: V. Ontomathematics!

Penchev

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper is the final part of a series introducing the new conceptions of “Hilbert mathematics” and “ontomathematics”. The specific subject of the present investigation is the proper philosophical sense of both, including philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of physics not less than the traditional “first philosophy” (as far as ontomathematics is a conservative generalization of ontology as well as of Heidegger’s “fundamental ontology” though in a sense) and history of philosophy (deepening Heidegger’s destruction of it from the pre-Socratics to the Pythagoreans). Husserl’s phenomenology and Heidegger’s derivative “fundamental ontology” as well as his later doctrine after the “turn” are the starting point of the research as established and well known approaches relative to the newly introduced conception of ontomathematics, even more so that Husserl himself started criticizing his “Philosophy of arithmetic” as too naturalistic and psychological turning to “Logical investigations” and the foundations of phenomenology. Heidegger’s “Aletheia” is also interpreted ontomathematically: as a relation of locality and nonlocality, respectively as a motion from nonlocality to locality if both are physically considered. Aristotle’s ontological revision of Plato’s doctrine is “destructed” further from the pre-Socratics' “Logos” or Heidegger’s “Language” (after the “turn”) to the Pythagoreans “Numbers” or “Arithmetics” as an inherent and fundamental philosophical doctrine. Then, a leap to contemporary physics elucidates the essence of ontomathematics overcoming the Cartesian abyss inherited from Plato’s opposition of “ideas” versus “things”, and now unifying physics and mathematics, particularly allowing for the “creation from nothing” instead of the quasi-scientific myth of the “Big Bang”

show abstract

Shattering Presence: Being as Change, Time as the Sudden Instant in Heidegger's 1930–31 Seminar on Plato's Parmenides

Cited by 6 publications

References 12 publications

Heidegger’s Answer to Plato’s Parmenides

Heidegger’s Answer to Plato’s Parmenides

Hilbert mathematics versus (or rather “without”) Gödel mathematics: V. Ontomathematics!

Hilbert mathematics versus (or rather “without”) Gödel mathematics: V. Ontomathematics!

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About