obscuredeutschfilter
October 25, 2006 12:27 PM Subscribe
Could someone please explain the meaning and (philosophical) significance of the German term Voraussetzungslosigkeit? No more inside, I'm afraid.
Voraussetzung, means presupposition, or prejudice.
losigkeit, means without.
In this meaning it was used by Descartes, and Kant, to explore if it was possible to think or reason without completely set ideas, that couldn't be proofed but simply had to be accepted a priori.
I don't know if anyone has done anything with it since Gödel proofed that even in maths a system has an axiom.
Maybe the phenomologists explored it, but I never liked them enough to explore.
posted by ijsbrand at 12:52 PM on October 25, 2006
losigkeit, means without.
In this meaning it was used by Descartes, and Kant, to explore if it was possible to think or reason without completely set ideas, that couldn't be proofed but simply had to be accepted a priori.
I don't know if anyone has done anything with it since Gödel proofed that even in maths a system has an axiom.
Maybe the phenomologists explored it, but I never liked them enough to explore.
posted by ijsbrand at 12:52 PM on October 25, 2006
ok fine, meaning, I hate thinking about philosophy but it goes back to the whole tabula rosa thing, you need a blank slate to truthfully analzye anything honestly. Otherwise you are analyzing your past experiences rather than the facts on hand.
posted by stormygrey at 12:53 PM on October 25, 2006
posted by stormygrey at 12:53 PM on October 25, 2006
And if it really is a tabula rosa, you’re probably limiting your prejudices to those that work with the gay part of your personality, which may not super-constructive either, depending on context :-) .
The word isn’t that obscure, if you interpret it, as most Germans would, as the natural application of the suffixes of "–[s]los + ig + keit]" [less + adverbial + state] to Voraussetzung, ‘precondition, assumption.’ I haven’t read the relevant philosophy, so I tend to trust ijsbrand’s interpretation of it here.
posted by Aidan Kehoe at 2:00 PM on October 25, 2006 [1 favorite]
The word isn’t that obscure, if you interpret it, as most Germans would, as the natural application of the suffixes of "–[s]los + ig + keit]" [less + adverbial + state] to Voraussetzung, ‘precondition, assumption.’ I haven’t read the relevant philosophy, so I tend to trust ijsbrand’s interpretation of it here.
posted by Aidan Kehoe at 2:00 PM on October 25, 2006 [1 favorite]
For those who didn't get Aidan's comment, rosa is Latin (f.) for "pink"; the phrase in question is tabula rasa.
posted by rob511 at 3:16 PM on October 25, 2006
posted by rob511 at 3:16 PM on October 25, 2006
A quick google of your word plus "philosophy" suggests it's used by Husserl and some of his students. Look at Wikipedia or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to find out more about him.
Descartes doesn't use this word specifically, since he's originally writing in French and Latin. But the notion that ijsbrand refers to, that we can build all our knowledge on a basis of purely a priori premises (that is, premises that are knowable without any experience of the world), is called "foundationalism". If you're curious about that issue, that would be a useful term to search for at SEP; or try "epistemology - foundationalism". I'm not sure what connection if any this has to Husserl though.
The notion "tabula rasa" or "blank slate" is used in a slightly different way. The question is whether, when we are born, we "already know" basic a priori truths (like the truths of geometry) and need only to be led to examine this knowledge that we already have, or whether we start with a totally blank brain and only learn things through experience.
These two questions:
- is foundationalism true? and
- are we born as blank slates?
are related but not exactly the same. The first has to do with how our knowledge is justified; that is, how can we be completely sure that what we think is true really is true? The second has to do with how it is actually acquired.
posted by LobsterMitten at 4:22 PM on October 25, 2006
Descartes doesn't use this word specifically, since he's originally writing in French and Latin. But the notion that ijsbrand refers to, that we can build all our knowledge on a basis of purely a priori premises (that is, premises that are knowable without any experience of the world), is called "foundationalism". If you're curious about that issue, that would be a useful term to search for at SEP; or try "epistemology - foundationalism". I'm not sure what connection if any this has to Husserl though.
The notion "tabula rasa" or "blank slate" is used in a slightly different way. The question is whether, when we are born, we "already know" basic a priori truths (like the truths of geometry) and need only to be led to examine this knowledge that we already have, or whether we start with a totally blank brain and only learn things through experience.
These two questions:
- is foundationalism true? and
- are we born as blank slates?
are related but not exactly the same. The first has to do with how our knowledge is justified; that is, how can we be completely sure that what we think is true really is true? The second has to do with how it is actually acquired.
posted by LobsterMitten at 4:22 PM on October 25, 2006
Response by poster: Thanks for the definitions so far, folks.
Aidan, that's just the kind of wordplay joke my dad would like, if only he knew any Latin.
LobsterMitten, thanks for the refresher. By now you must surely be in the company of jessamyn and a few others as one of AskMe's most prolific, helpful and consistently thoughful contributors.
Based on the answers here and my own searches, I still suspect that in addition to its literal meaning, Voraussetzungslosigkeit refers to a very specific concept, and likely one in Husserl. I don't really expect that anyone would know the reference off the top of their head, but by all means, share it if you do!
posted by Urban Hermit at 8:12 PM on October 25, 2006 [1 favorite]
Aidan, that's just the kind of wordplay joke my dad would like, if only he knew any Latin.
LobsterMitten, thanks for the refresher. By now you must surely be in the company of jessamyn and a few others as one of AskMe's most prolific, helpful and consistently thoughful contributors.
Based on the answers here and my own searches, I still suspect that in addition to its literal meaning, Voraussetzungslosigkeit refers to a very specific concept, and likely one in Husserl. I don't really expect that anyone would know the reference off the top of their head, but by all means, share it if you do!
posted by Urban Hermit at 8:12 PM on October 25, 2006 [1 favorite]
Golly; thanks! Sorry I couldn't actually be of some help with your real question, though.
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:11 PM on October 25, 2006
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:11 PM on October 25, 2006
« Older Resuming research work with an ex-professor? | What happened to A9's Yellow Pages feature? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by stormygrey at 12:42 PM on October 25, 2006