Or cheap gaming.

A little alarm just went off in my head. I don't know which one, but it definitely went off.

And how you think makes absolutely no sense and/or makes you a massive hypocrite.

1) Hate science
2) Use all the benefits of science[1]
3) ???
4) PROFIT!!!

[1] You know, like using the internet (created by science), taking medication to not die (created by science), eating food to not die (made plentiful by science) etc.

I also find it amusing that you didn't tell us what this eventually-prevailing Philosphy of Truth +10 actually is. Way to keep the prize to yourself you greedy so-and-so! :P

More on point: If I recall correctly, there is a (greasemonkey) script somewhere that does the conversion. Perhaps you can find it (it might still work) or someone might be willing to write one for you.

Appeal to Authority

Are you sure? You can be honest and a hypocrite. It's called Cognitive Dissonance.

utterly: absolutely: completely and without qualification

So to make the hypocrasy here obvious, this is what you actually wrote put into one sentence. Something can't be both utterly retarded and responsible for the most progress made, in the smallest time, in our (known) history.

And I don't understand how you could read a post with ":P" in it and think I was being aggressive..

It wasn't a constant ringing. It was triggered because your reply was off-topic and directed to me, so I thought you may have been someone else who tried to engage me in discussion a couple of months ago. This is why I didn't explain it further. I don't want to throw the label "troll" around if it didn't apply. Looks like it was the right call :)

18? Doesn't the realisation that you are going to die normally hit you much earlier than that? I had figured out I was going to die and what I needed to do (or rather, that there was nothing I could do) before I was 13.

I don't find the answer annoying or a cop out. I do, however, find it to be incorrect. You/Heidegger are basically saying "The meaning of my existence is to question the meaning of my existence". An absolutely answered question like that is no longer a question. The correct answer is "nothing". The answer may be different if you change the scope though (i.e. what does being mean to you?)

Obviously, because philosophy is the arena of that which cannot be objectively concluded.

I presume you mean the presence of his works :P And I am ambivalent to whether they do or not. While I believe the direction of his works is pointless from the quick summary of 'Being and Time' I've read, they are hardly damaging.

It doesn't lead to any truth. I have read some of his thoughts and one in particular is particularly egregious. Yeah.. no. If what you are proposing cannot withstand [i[being understood[/i], it is clearly and obviously wrong. At least religious people stop at "you can't understand God". This is equivalent to saying "If you understood God, he would cease being God". (which I personally find quite apt, because I believe an increased understanding of "God" leads to the belief that he doesn't exist :P).

And according to above, you can either not achieve understanding or achieving understanding will kill philosophy.

And I appreciate it a lot, especially considering your response was very civil, despite your belief that I was being hostile(?)/aggressive. We can continue this discussion in another thread or over PM/email, if you wish to continue but not continue it here.

The world is in such a mess because we (here specifically, you) have defined it to be a mess :) There is no point in human history where I would define it any other way as there is always something messy about the world. However, I believe we can achieve "non-messyness" in our future and that the only way to achieve it is through increased understanding of what we exist in.. and that is done using science.

I find it really interesting that the person you are claiming who has revealed the ultimate truth in our modern era was a (unapologetic and non-regretful!) member of the Nazi party until the end of the war.

This alone makes him lose a lot of credibility in my eyes. You can't go espousing the idea of Being, the importance of being able to question it and that technology is bad.. and then support a party that deprives millions of people of the ability to question their Being by using technology to put them into camps and then gas them to death.

I was going to end this post with what I thought was the most important philosophical question ("Who am I in the dark?") but in light of information about this philosopher, I feel better about the answer to that question because:

I am not Martin Heidegger.

So, after all that, I guess the only question left to ask is:

What's the conversion rate for pounds to Heideggers? :-)

It's interesting that you think that's what Xyem was saying... >_>

I didn't say that xyem necessarily thought so, but he (she ?) did leave room for me to doubt. Anyway, there's certainly no hate coming from my side and I don't think there's any hate coming from xyem - or from you ! - but it is a very common reaction to connect H. and Nazism and I certainly understand why, though I don't connect metaphysics (Heidegger's or anyone else's) and politics personally, and even have very strong views why it should be possible to philosophise (speculate on the nature of all things) without being forced to take up a "political" stance. But do YOU understand the relationship between philosophy and politics ? I tell you now : politics depends on philosophy but philosophy does not depend on politics. It is possible to know nothing at all about the "world" (of human beings) and yet to understand the essence of all things. This kind of knowledge is certainly is not going to help you take over the world. All the same this knowledge is superior to "worldly" knowledge.

But this could of course be mere "rhetoric". Please continue to be suspicious if you feel the need.

No no, it just seemed overly defensive for what Xyem had said but for all I know perhaps you do get a lot of people accusing you of being a nazi for reading Heidegger. ;)

Well most of the time in my life there is no need to bring Heidegger or philosophy in general into any conversation - though sometimes it absolutely IS necessary. It was daft of me to bring it into a thread about currency conversion : this was not an occasion where it was necessary really, I just got carried away. I'm well aware of the connection between Heidegger and the Nazis and that it (the connection) is undeniable as a "fact", though I don't believe that the connection is understood. And yes, I have been "accused" of being any number of things for posting such thoughts online before (e.g. on YouTube) : a "neo-Nazi" or a terrorist of some sort. It is so far from being true it is hilarious. To be a Heidegger reader / advocate you do not have to be that kind of person. On the other hand his thought does throw a certain light on the world as it is at present which allows you to see it in a different way.

Please do. I'm only planning to use the block function for those that spam my inbox (like I only use downrep to mark spam). Pretty sure that won't be your intention :)

I'm glad to hear that. I wrote it over several hours (yay, multitask) and am glad to hear it was somewhat coherent!

I just want to clarify that I don't believe you have any agreement with any of Heidegger's views other than the one you stated you did (i.e. his philosophy regarding Being). So don't worry, I don't and won't think you are a Nazi unless you start expressing Nazi beliefs!

I only brought it up because, as I said, I found it interesting that he was an unapologetic Nazi party memeber as that doesn't "match" the philosphy he was espousing. It isn't his Nazi-ism that makes his views lose their credibility, it is his inconsistency in applying them.

Just like a physics teacher would lose credibility as a physics teacher if they kept getting physics wrong (most of my A level physics classes consisted of correcting the teacher) and why PETA have no credibility when it comes to animal welfare (i.e. "We're for the ethical treatment and saving of animals, so we release them into the wild where they suffer needlessly and die, or we just kill them ourselves!"); Heidegger loses credibility when he espouses the importantance of Being when he supports people rounding people up and stopping them from Being.

While this was truly interesting to read I got a little lost on why this had something to do with a £ - conversion for the GOG shop.

If you care to explain that for our other philosophical inclined members and to my humble self, a rather Schopenhauer'ish inclined hobby philosopher.

I'm 99% sure the answer is "nothing". GOG topics seem to be an open world adventure so people regularly seem to ignore the main story line and instead focus on unrelated quests.

GOG = Skyrim (only bigger and less stupid Steam DRM)