Thank you for saying this Mistah Heideggah
Rome, Judaism, and Christianity completely transformed and adulterated the inceptual—i.e., Greek—philosophy.
Speaking of angels.
This is from a course he gave in 1932 on Anaximander and Parmenides who he takes to be the first philosophers, Thales only existing through second-hand accounts. The subject of their interest was none other than “that which is”.
So let’s distinguish something here- this is not about Plato’s Parmenides dialogue, Parmenides has his own writings.
That which is. What can you say about that? What adjectives do you think of first? You might think of using one of your five senses perhaps to describe that which is. It’s not so easy is it? What’s wrong, haven’t you been experiencing that which is for years and years? What is it, tell me what it is! What have you been, blind for years?
That which is means that which is before and around us, below us and above us, and includes ourselves.
A kitten is going to die unless you say what it is, hurry.
You couldn’t do it, it died.
Do you think it’s possible for someone to know what that which is is better than someone else? Or is everyone equally blind to what that which is is?
How about these people who “live in clownworld” as we call it? Do you think they know what that which is is?
Does a child know what that which is is?
Step back for a second and notice that this way of talking is not something that ordinarily happens in this “secular Judaeo-Christian” world of ours. That’s not how things work here. You are told what that which is is. You are not asked. And what that which is is is presupposed. No typo there by the way. I want to know what you think it is. This is how a society of equals would go. Thus the original statement that Greek philosophy has been adulterated by other forms of thinking, which are more precisely other forms of non-thinking. If Yahweh tells me what that which is is I’m going to wonder if he’s right- seems pretty innocent to me, and yet–. And if you adopt this attitude you will likely find that the account of that which is which is given to us by others, and really forced upon us, has many flaws to it. This is the very essence of illegal. This isn’t about one particular thoughtcrime, it’s about the foundation of criminal thinking itself. When you start from here you open yourself up to being a very unacceptable person.
Imagine if you will being confused about that which is. Do you think that would cause problems? Well, that seems tautological. And what if what we’re told that which is is isn’t what that which is is? Do you think that’s possible? That they could’ve gotten it wrong?
Let’s just go back to the beginning why don’t we. This is Anaximander who was born about a century before Parmenides
things pay one another penalty and retribution for their wickedness
This is one of his thoughts about that which is, i.e. the “being of beings” in general.
Besides this he thought that which is is appearance and disappearance, things “step forth” and go away. Tough to dispute that one. The quoted statement above is a bit more open for debate. Putting these ideas together though, penalty and retribution for wickedness IS that which steps forth then disappears. Do you ever happen to experience that throughout the day? If you agree with him about appearance and disappearance what would you say appears and disappears instead? Sticking with his thought for now though, note that YOU are also that which is, and thus you do not only receive penalty for wickedness, you also dish it out yourself. Is he wrong? This is fun to me, going back to the very basics. Wickedness? Penalties? Wait a second, that’s all real isn’t it! So much for moral relativism. You’re not guilty of wickedness, you don’t deserve a penalty, do you? Whoops, there I go being that which is.
So let’s go back to the subject of whether what we’re told to believe about that which is is in fact that which is. Given this idea I call “moral relaxation” it seems they’re trying to suppress Being, in a way. I wonder why arguably the most wicked people in history would want to do such a thing? Could it be that they do not want the penalty that they deserve? And what happens when wickedness is not met with its natural penalty?