nobody and nothing said:Here is the continuation:
Logic begins somewhere back with the likes of Yeltsin: Parmenides,
............
Modern science—the kind we recognize today—starts, quite obviously, with the modern era. It starts with Galileo, with Descartes... The first true science (in our current sense of the term) and the blueprint for everything else is mathematical physics, as it was forged by Newton.
So, what is the fundamental difference between this modern scientific approach and what came before?
Fine. What does it actually mean to measure? What are we even measuring? We take a distance and use meters. What else? Time, using a clock. But how do we measure time? Well, a hand moves a certain distance as time passes. Ah, so we reduce time to distance, and then we measure that distance. Exactly. Then there's mass; we use a scale... again, it’s about a moving hand. To measure it, we strip away that vague sensation of weight and reduce it to a physical distance, which we then measure. In the end, everything comes down to measuring length.
Essentially, we accept that Cartesian meditation where all the qualities of things outside ourselves are stripped away, leaving nothing but extension. We reduce every quality to a number, to a length.
....
''By the way, that feeling you have of love is ACTUALLY just a cluster of molecules—some enzymes, some hormones—that is ACTUALLY love, those molecules, just as that rock over there is a cluster of molecules.''
Science undeniably promotes this attitude that 'everything exists in the exact same way.' It treats everything like a rock, in a mode of mere presence. Because nothing exists except for... Or it's nothing at all (meaning nothing of value, though we've become accustomed to calling anything lacking utility 'nothing'). It’s convenient to deal with things this way.
So, Heidegger argues that science doesn't think, that logic doesn't think... what is left? Who is doing the thinking? Who doesn't just falsify, but accepts things as they truly are? Who views a human being as a human being (not as a primate, or an economic unit), a flower as a flower (not as a botanical specimen), a stone as a stone (not as a mineral or building material), a river as a river (not as potential hydroelectric energy), or an angel as an angel (not as a hallucination caused by a dysfunctional sex life)?
The later Heidegger doesn't find truth in the vicinity of science and logic, but rather alongside poetry. The poet possesses that sense of Releasement that allows them to see a human as a human, a flower as a flower, a stone as a stone, a river as a river, and an angel as an angel.
'Poets establish that which remains.'
Parmenides is an ethicist because, based on the postulate "that we can only think about that which is," he delivers a critique of such a stubborn existence of lies and falsehoods...
Descartes is a believer who used science merely as a tool...
Measurement isn't the essence of true science; it's just counting.
Yes, we are a combination of molecules, whether people like it or not...
Heidegger says that only ontology "thinks," just as you say...
That later phase of his, the poetic one, is nothing more than a poor imitation of Schlegel...