Yes, you’re exactly on point. I’ve often thought that we shouldn’t be trigger-happy about dissolving questions. It’s possible that “nature of being” has a real answer and shouldn’t be dissolved. But I’m pretty sure we would need a new attack for that, because I have zero faith in the attack used by Heidegger. Why do you have faith in it?
(The idea of “attack” comes from this talk by Hamming. It’s central to all my thinking about thinking.)
Yes, you’re exactly on point. I’ve often thought that we shouldn’t be trigger-happy about dissolving questions. It’s possible that “nature of being” has a real answer and shouldn’t be dissolved. But I’m pretty sure we would need a new attack for that, because I have zero faith in the attack used by Heidegger. Why do you have faith in it?
(The idea of “attack” comes from this talk by Hamming. It’s central to all my thinking about thinking.)
Versions of the “nature of being” question are relevant to things like MWI and the mathematical universe hypothesis.
I don’t, and I didn’t say I did. H. is one of my least favourite philosophers.