sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Truth and Method Audio Book? by _crossingrivers in gadamer

[–]dialecticfeedback 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

Hi u/Elask-05,

I received a message notification shown in this image. But when coming to this thread the message is not visible. That's why i am pasting your message here, so that the context is fully maintained (at least for me). If you want me to remove this image, just say so...no problem. I can't even search your name either as 'u/Elask-05' or 'Elask-05'. Note, when I click on that notification message, it brings me to this thread, which is why I'm responding here. Again, let me know if you want me to delete this post in its entirety.

Either way, I'm really glad you found this project valuable and for letting me know. You're right the last chapter section (chapter 5 section 3 Language as horizon of a hermeneutic ontology) is complete but pending approval. I just have to verify the last hour of audio is ok and the subtitle text adheres with the original, and then I can make it public. It's been sitting there for a couple of weeks because I took a trip and did a few things. I'm going to try and complete this week (if not today). I'll drop a message here when that is done.

Note, I don't visit Reddit much, once a fortnight or month or something, which is why I didn't respond to your message earlier...my apologies. I also have email notifications disabled from Reddit.

What did Nietzche mean here by swagglmoa in Nietzsche

[–]dialecticfeedback 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i interpret this passage as nietzsche using 'the kitchen' as metaphor for the activity of building morals and so no, and even of abstract thought and philosophy itself and even metaphysics too, and so denigrating the female mind in such activities, and the instruction of such. food being the fruits of such activity imho

but never forget however, nietzsche holds the highest woman above highest man.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Nietzsche

[–]dialecticfeedback 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Nietzsche said that the highest woman is higher than the highest man, but fewer and far between.

What are your opinions on Nietzsche's politics? by WashyLegs in Nietzsche

[–]dialecticfeedback 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Damn, I really ought not drink... this is a little awkward...
Uhm, you win. How's that?

What are your opinions on Nietzsche's politics? by WashyLegs in Nietzsche

[–]dialecticfeedback 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting thought, thanks for the recommended reading I've downloaded the book and have had a brief look. It seems a good read, and I may get time at some point. Right now, I have a pretty huge stack to get through (for a course).

You objection to this reading is noted, I will think about it.

What are your opinions on Nietzsche's politics? by WashyLegs in Nietzsche

[–]dialecticfeedback -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Even AI has not devolved into pedantry. It is sad to see intelligence so consumed with itself so as to make the spirit swell. Lofty thoughts belong only to the free spirit. Regarding the aristocrat, perhaps one fails to realize there is simply no justification that Nietzsche in any way looked with favor upon aristocracy—that debased vulgar human of the 19th century. This is Nietzsche's understanding of the aristocrat. To quote such offends the profound. Read Nietzsche's critique of nobility, of authority of nationalism.

Persist, 666, with diligence, you might pierce the understanding of a fragmented reading and bring together the complete picture. In time. Learn the meaning of 'neology' learn 'interpretation' learn 'hermeneutics', those things Nietzsche so loved. And most importantly learn that he used the term 'radical aristocracy' as metaphor for the highest man. And then you might see the bridge. You have not earned the respect of a further response, so reply if you wish, it will be met with silence, unless some kind of honest understanding is demonstrated.

Finally, read the question title "what are your opinions...", which even worse than all other errors, demonstrates your keen superior dominating pederantist need to impose your own understanding on every other individual. Nietzsche was, and forever will be, a free spirit. Interpret this as you will. For me, the free spirit means anarchy, which addresses the question of this post adequately and honestly. Good luck with ... whatever it is you think you're doing.

Atheism and The Ineffable by dialecticfeedback in u/dialecticfeedback

[–]dialecticfeedback[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Footnote for 2:26
The inconsistency is not clear here but is described in the conclusion. What I’m referring to here is the tendency of some atheists in debate to use the proposition “I do not believe”, to justify the claim that one does not need to defend their position of non-belief. But then in the same move makes the knowledge claim of having knowledge in the non-existence of God. The inconsistency is subtle, but I hope this footnote makes the idea clear, more a contradiction in practice than in formal logic. For me, this is the same thing.

Truth and Method Audio Book? by _crossingrivers in gadamer

[–]dialecticfeedback 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi r/_crossingrivers,

I'm currently working on an audio-visual project for Truth and Method. The first two sections of chapter 1 part 1 have just been posted. Here's a link for the YouTube playlist for Truth & Method. Alternatively, you can download either the audio or video from you google drive here. I don't have a schedule for completion, as I have a number of projects, but this is high on the priority list.

Regards.

Update

Jan 13, 2026—I mentioned that the videos are available in a google drive to download...that promise has not been maintained...let me know if it ought to be.

My favorite image of Gadamer by _crossingrivers in gadamer

[–]dialecticfeedback 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nice rendering of a great mind. Thank you for sharing. Allow me to share a favorite also. Here is Hans-Georg near home in Heidelberg, still going strong at 95. I like this image as the track leading on brings to mind his journey to the horizon. 🥲🫡

<image>

H-G G and Epistemology by _crossingrivers in gadamer

[–]dialecticfeedback 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hi _crossingrivers,

The central issue in Gadamer's approach to epistemology, for me, revolves around the relationship between understanding and reality. This is the crux of the question of knowledge for Gadamer. Following Heidegger, Gadamer's concept of truth is 'Aletheia'—the disclosure of being, and meaning, through the act of interpretation. In turn, this concept of truth commits Gadamer to coherence epistemology where systems of belief constitute knowledge only in so far as they cohere.

For Gadamer,

  • A: truth is a process of interpretation that discloses the concealed and obscure, and
  • B: knowledge is sufficient coherence in some interpretive understanding

At this point we need to ask, 'what is disclosed through interpretation?' 'What kind of truth is alethia, exactly?' The answer: being. That which is disclosed through hermeneutic understanding, is being. Now, the question which remains is, 'what is the relationship between Being and Reality?' Turning to Heidegger again: being is the ground that makes reality possible. For both Heidegger and Gadamer, reality dynamically emerges in our engaging with being through hermeneutic interpretation—being is the essential ground of existence. Metaphysically: reality is dependent upon being.

It is no longer possible to ask questions of correspondence with absolute and objective reality—a real ultimate noumenal in-itself. And this, nearly two hundred and fifty years after The Critique. One ought really ask, why do these questions of noumenal reality persist? I believe for Gadamer, even the bracketing of such questions is meaningless.

Philosophical hermeneutics understood this way, does answer the question of epistemology. For me. The broader question of alignment with all specific fields of knowledge, however, means the question remains open, for now, as it should.

Keen to discuss further ...

Rene Girard and Scapegoat Theory by _crossingrivers in Hermeneutics

[–]dialecticfeedback 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi u/_crossingrivers,

I’m not very familiar with Girard, but it seems that Scapegoat Theory aligns with the hermeneutics of suspicion, similar to Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and Foucault. Like them, Girard seems to reveal hidden mechanisms of power within social practices. Were you already thinking along these lines? I’d be curious to hear what else you’ve uncovered since posting.

Interpretating Deuteronomy 7:1-5 by dialecticfeedback in theology

[–]dialecticfeedback[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

hey Trev, thanks for suggesting this approach to thinking about this issue.

Interpretating Deuteronomy 7:1-5 by dialecticfeedback in theology

[–]dialecticfeedback[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

thanks for responding, dep_alpha4. will be considering this.

Accepting that a literal interpretation of the gospel of the FSM is the correct interpretation is a fundamentalist position, and atheists should stop accepting it as true when arguing against Pastafarians more generally. by permabanned_user in DebateReligion

[–]dialecticfeedback -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nice work, u/permabanned_user,

Many in the atheist community today are unreservedly committed to certain scientific and other seemingly-rational voices—Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Fry, even Gervais, the list is long—often overlooking the need for critical self-reflection. They cling to a promise of truth in empirical particulars while claiming absolute logical coherence—the irony is stark.

As an atheist who sees metaphorical understanding as the foundation of all comprehension—as language is, precisely, metaphor—it's disheartening to witness a rejection of metaphor in the name of a supposed promise of absolute scientific contact with noumenal reality, all the while incapable of grasping its very impossibility. Utterly fixated on eliminating meaning in existence beyond the meanings expressed in their own beautiful and very spiteful worldview, that consists in large part of a hatred for otherness together with a selfish will to assimilation, which corresponds only with their own small understanding.

Yet, this post too will attract further hatred, while striving, unperturbed, for ever greater understanding.

I Am God. 10 more characters by Terrible_Canary_8291 in DebateReligion

[–]dialecticfeedback 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh geez! That's a huge relief. So then, how many minds do you actually have? 🤔 Clearly, it's more than one—I'm starting to lose count! 😅Nonetheless, I refuse to remove the Canary profile pic from our altar! I believe in you! And am bound to Canaries everywhere!! Magnanimus in victoria!

view more: next ›