Warum es die Welt nicht gibt PDF ✓ die Welt

10 thoughts on “Warum es die Welt nicht gibt

  1. Sid Nuncius Sid Nuncius says:

    This is a pretty demanding book It's written with wit and in a rather engaging style but it's still a tough intellectual work out On the whole I think it's worth the effort but it's not an unmitigated intellectual treat by any meansI am not a philosopher although I have studied Philosophy of Science and it's an interest which I have kept up Markus Gabriel makes a decent stab at moving on from the sort of postmodern nonsense we've been subjected to of our internal view of the world cannot be the world itself so therefore anyone's internal view is eually valid He does it with wit and verve and makes a decent case for his New RealismIt's not really for an amateur like me in a place like this to attempt to assess how valid Gabriel's ideas may be However with his admittedly slightly playful assertion that the title that the world as an entirety is not to be found within the world and therefore cannot exist he seems to me to be on some very thin philosophical ice Philosophers do like to play fast and loose with logical operators like therefore and because and Gabriel isn't immune from this For what it's worth this just reads to me as a simple category error like Here we have a pair of gloves However the pair is not contained within the gloves so therefore the pair cannot exist The physical gloves and the concept of a pair are not of the same category so this is plainly logical nonsense and Gabriel seems to me to be making the same error about the world I had a similar sense in a number of places but it's reasonably cogent and sound enough to be stimulating rather than just infuriating This is a considerable relief to someone who has actually read the whole of Baudrillard's The Gulf War Did Not Take Place for exampleThere is sometimes the slightly arrogant feel which seems to occur in a lot of philosophical writing where authors adopt an if you don't agree then you're too stupid to understand tone It's not as bad here as in some I've read though and at least the writing is largely comprehensible I'd say this is well worth a go if you're interested in this sort of thing It is decently written has some stimulating stuff in it and did make me think which is I suppose what I'm looking for in a book like this I can recommend it on that basis

  2. Owlseyes Owlseyes says:

    The world doesn’t exist but maybe the universe does; and the unicorn tooview spoilerSo are the noumena out of consideration? hide spoiler

  3. Hugo Filipe Hugo Filipe says:

    Way too academic and not inspiring at allIn fact the uestion should be Why does this book exist?

  4. Jason Jason says:

    What is perhaps for me most notable about Markus Gabriel’s WHY THE WORLD DOES NOT EXIST is that I came almost completely around to its general line of argumentation as well as the efficacy of its reasoning despite having spent much time during my reading of the first uarter of the book or thereabouts nearly convinced that I absolutely hated it There were a couple of principal reason for this disfavour in the early going These reasons were I believe legitimate Let’s take a moment to consider a passage of Gabriel’s from fairly early in the introduction We might call this passage something akin to a thesis statement “There are planets my dreams evolution the toilet flush hair loss hopes elementary particles and even unicorns on the far side of the moon to mention only a few examples The principle that the world does not exist entails that everything else exists For this reason I can already announce that I will claim as my first principle that everything exists except one thing the world” The crux of the point seems worthy I would imagine it a proposition for which a convincing case might well be made But the delivery is or at least was slightly irksome to me It’s an issue of rhetoric Of course the invocation of “unicorns on the far side of the moon” has given the folks at Polity the publisher of this English translation of the book the inspiration for their uite charming cover I like the cover I liked the cover and I liked the idea that an exhaustive case can be made that literally anything that can be conceived of exists the world being the only exception; these are two of the reasons I bought the book But this business with unicorns on the far side of the moon later they will be presented again augmented with the addition of police uniforms is characteristic of a kind of ueasily cutesy approach to metaphor simile and extrapolation byof example I am not going to overburden you with examples from the text Let me just include one this one from the first chapter “What is this Actually the World?” Here we find another analogous bit of silly sophistry Gabriel very much performing the imagining of a hypothetical “mereological sum of all properties” consisting of “my left hand Angela Merkel’s favorite book and the most expensive Currywurst south of Frankfurt plus everything else” Too much of this stuff gets annoying fast You start to imagine that some artificial intelligence prototype or alien from another dimension has come to you believing it can convince you it is human by wearing a loud Hawaiian shirt Perhaps one might also recall unconvincingly undercover Steve Buscemi’s “How do you do fellow kids?” from the television comedy series 30 ROCK Of course I am aware that my putting matters thusly brings me dangerously close to practicing the exact same rhetorical method I am critiuing Perhaps I find it all the vexing for being contagious Markus Gabriel is not the only contemporary philosopher theorist or critic who utilizes this particular variety of device I have noted for example its regular utilization in the writings of Terry Eagleton and this has got to be considered one of the reasons that I have essentially decided that I am not going to be reading Terry Eagleton It would seem very likely that part of why I grew increasingly fond of WHY THE WORLD DOES NOT EXIST is that Gabriel uses this particular sort of device less freuently in the later rewarding sections of the book Another thing I objected to in the early sections of WHY THE WORLD DOES NOT EXIST was the author’s general tendency toward trite expedience much of this involving what I perceived to be fatuous strawman arguments unacceptable reductions and suppositions that certain problems have been reconciled without the author believing he has to demonstrate that this is satisfactorily the case Gabriel asserts that postmodernism wasis a form of constructivism in the sense that postmodern theory would appear fundamentally conditioned by the precept “that there are absolutely no facts in themselves and that we construct all facts through our multifaceted forms of discourse and scientific methods” He does not make the case that there is in fact an overarching body of postmodern theory and he fails to address it specifically in any discernibly existing context This is all to common today and we might tend to associate such dismissive claims with a certain odious psychology professor with a marked online presence If anybody does claim what Gabriel would have so called postmodernists claiming and if they do so without ualification then I would agree that they should be called to task for doing so Gabriel does not properly call anybody in particular to task I do not see the postulate that Gabriel sees operative in postmodern theory as a central presupposition in the works of poststructuralist theorists like Derrida and Foucault In fact when Gabriel goes on to say that scientific method is legitimate for establishing truths though compromised when using the truths gleaned from the practice of method to serve an overarching worldview or world picture I would be inclined to suggest that he finds himself extremely close to Foucault There are other examples of dubious expediences of argumentation When Gabriel makes a distinction between ontology related to being and metaphysics related to the true hidden nature of the world I don’t think he does so in good faith Later Gabriel will call Hegel the ultimate early modern metaphysician on account of the concept of the “absolute idea” There are many who would argue and with good reason that the “absolute idea” can be situated within the domain of ontology Not that I am a fan of the concept of the “absolute idea Though the book did grow on me and though these various examples of expedience do lead to critical insights of considerable worth there is another argument central to WHY THE WORLD DOES NOT EXIST that I am not satisfied with even as it reemerges in the final pages Namely Gabriel does not believe that everything is connected In the introduction he asks us to consider the worlds plural within worlds again plural within even just a small restaurant where one may happen to dine on a given night “Many things are connected with many other things but it is false in the strictest sense actually impossible that everything is connected” This is an adeuate assessment if we mean that things are not all comprehensively connected within a single ‘field of sense’ which is to say within a single comprehensive world picture but Gabriel is missing something crucial He believes that—and he states this directly—the infinite is infinite and there are also infinite perspectives on the infinite which does not mean that all such perspectives are eually good or eually useful Perspectives are constantly contested and they are regularly altered or modified Right But with infinite fields of sense within the context of the infinite would there not be infinite ways of infinitely connecting elements of previously unrelated fields of sense within new fields of sense? That would be my contention I want to believe that everything is connected To do that I do not believe I need a comprehensive and closed off world picture Gabriel presents his project as a new or emergent philosophical system but hardly as a complete break with precedent He usefully borrows from many distinct domains He calls this project “new realism” and explains that it was born over the course of a lunch with Maurizio Ferraris in the summer of 2001 New realism arrives in the aftermath of postmodernity a phase that had sought to dispel the dominance of metaphysical illusions Okay Maybe provisionally sort of okay It was metaphysics that gave us the world in the first place Gabriel wants to be done with the world on account of its not existing but he also wants truth and sense and things in themselves So we might add did folks like Gilles Deleuze New realism is founded upon the conviction that not only are “human existence and knowledge not a collective hallucination” but that “it is simply not the case that we are always or almost always mistaken This does not mean that we are never mistaken rather that mistakes can be called mistakes proven to be such and argued about even if they remain actual true existing things called mistakes as true as unicorns we might imagine existing on the far side of the moon The constructivist approach which achieves its first triumphant modern moment with Kant rather than the so called postmodernist horde only permits things to exist as apperceptive representations but new realism something like a complementarity rather than a constructivist model holds that “thoughts about facts exist with the same right as the facts at which our thought are directed” Gabriel doesn’t want the constructivism of Kant the monism of Spinoza what with the world not existing or worst of all the dualism of Descartes He is a little available to the pluralism of Leibniz’s monodology If there were in fact a world which there isn’t it would have to be the living and real manifestation of Heidegger’s concept of “the domain of all domains” Gabriel agrees that this is what the world would have to be but as there is no such supra domain or super object the world does not and cannot exist primarily because in cannot be found inside its domain what with nobody having access to an additional domain from which to appraise the world The world is not there because it cannot be found in the world We can have something like a picture of the infinite and indeed we need the infinite because the infinite is our home even if we are ourselves flung into a condition of existential finitude We can formulate the infinite but what we cannot formulate is our container on account of there being no such container There are infinite domains and these domains exist within various fields of sense Here we see how Gabriel has much in common with phenomenologists and hermeneutists He will at one point praise Hans Georg Gadamer and the supposition that there can be truth independent of exacting method because different truths have different fields of sense If the beings who sense exist in a condition of plurality this means that there are any number of provisional worldviews and that sentient beings will operate very much in accordance with something like their own independent horizons of interpretation which are themselves fields of sense Now I have already made passing reference the the odious psychology professor who hates Neo Marxist Postmodern Relativists so let’s note something very interesting here Yes Gabriel is dismissive of any kind of theory that suggests that truths of any kind are purely human constructions He also completely rejects the idea that all truths are eually valid or valid to the same extent and in the same manner such that all truth is relative However I cannot think of fields of sense without thinking of Einstein and the theory of relativity precisely because of the fact that any given field of sense reuires the appearance of the domain or the field which Einstein would call its frame of reference The frame allows for the intelligibility of andor for legitimately meaningful calculations germane to the correlation of elements within the field domain or frame It is interesting to me that though Gabriel does occasionally mention Einstein he never does make mention of this particular correspondence For Gabriel truths exists relationally between objects or things within a field of sense and the thing being in possession of spirit and thereby capable of sense Truth does not exist in the brain or body of the being of sense This means that the field of sense is not implemented by the being of sense Rather it appears or presents itself to sense within a field of sense Nevertheless the appearance of the field of sense is a grounding operation a provisional worlding The word ‘world’ can present itself here in its provisional sense but within the context of a Leibnitz like pluralism rather than a Spinozist infinite substance type monism which is implicitly metaphysical from Gabriel’s standpoint substance here becoming super object Anyway as established as Gabriel proceeds along I am finding myself and taken with his reasoning At a certain point I am beginning to realize that having earlier believed I might all but hate it I maybe kind of love WHY THE WORLD DOES NOT EXIST This produces a curious and altogether agreeable eventuation Though I had previously found his rhetorical expediences and strawman arguments dubious at best the best stuff in the whole book most of it consigned to the fifth chapter “The Meaning of Religion” involves in a manner already being set up late in the fourth chapter a taking to task of zealous scientist atheists the likes of Richard Dawkins et al Now I am not a religious person nor do I believe in an actual Heavenly Father situated up above who has a special interests in the beings and things he created Still I am totally on board with Gabriel here I couldn’t agree Having already agreed that if we imagine unicorns on the far side of the moon then they exist I am also a person who has in the past when asked how a reasonable person can believe in God or gods countered with the uestion as to how a reasonable person can pose a uestion about how a thing he she or what have you doesn’t believe exists but which has just been mentioned exists? God exists gods exist but in a particular field of sense and it is the historical persistence of these fields of sense that point to the centrality of the function God performs for beings of sense flung randomly into circumscribed existence within the context of an infinite the full extent of which cannot be actively experienced by any living being “For no scientific investigation will ever be able to free us from having to renegotiate the rules by which we live in order hopefully to place them on a rational foundation” Physics simply cannot replace the function God is called to perform in a separate field of sense and “we should not identify the meaning of religion with a set of superstitious beliefs as this will make us blind to the very need articulated in religion to the present day” I have always know that God exists because God is a concept people discuss the concept serving a function I have also had a tendency to to tell people that I think the world” is something we impose on the phenomena we encounter Gabriel has convinced me that what I ought to say is “a world” rather than “the world any world being one of infinitely many and that “we impose” is probably badly put

  5. Franck Franck says:

    Gabriel constructs scarecrows of his imagined opponents Foucault in particular which he then merrily guns down Problem is Foucault et al never have argued that simplistic and trivial as Gabriel insinuates This is bad style philosphically as well as intellectually For me this obliterated some of the clever arguments and intellectual games in the book

  6. Yağız Ay Yağız Ay says:

    I read this right after Ferraris and my idea is that these two books are best understood when read together Though part of the same movement Ferraris and Gabriel have their own means of expression which feed off different traditions and this difference makes reading the two together extremely interesting While Ferraris as an Italian is much reliant on politics and history Gabriel as a German is much sympathetic towards idealism so much so that his version of New Realism is a reconstruction of Shelling's Essay on Freedom Moreover Gabriel manages to combine the analytical and the continental schools or reconstruct this distinction with such ease and clarity that it is impossible not to be dazzled by his precision and rigor as a thinker He is also very funny for a German As for the significance of the book it was a best seller in Germany and one can read it uite separately from the history of philosophy as some sort of mental gymnastiue and it is very good in that It is a book that takes you seriously and seriously forces you to think So those who don't know about the debates concerning post structuralism who simply want an accessible book of philosophy can too enjoy this On the other hand there is the context in which the book basically reads like a polemic against various trends of 20th century philosophy In my mind it is what makes this a great book Gabriel manages with the right vocabulary and precision to make this a very original project that like other great works of philosophy can be a popular book while engaging with the history of philosophy and marking a moment in it To exist is to appear in a field of sense or environment and the world is the field of sense of all fields of sense For this it cannot exist for the world as such does not appear in a field of sense This is Gabriel's Schellingian idea that freedom is groundless Now the non existence of the world which is an implicit and simultaneous attack on the concept of the Absolute and the Deleuzian body without organs has philosophical conseuences as well as political ones The most significant I think is that if the world does not exist how can we have worldviews? This idea is dynamite and Gabriel plays it very carefully so as to not fall into the post structuralist trap that in the absence of the absolute there are only interpretations Unlike post structuralists he ends up endorsing a scientific realism while also arguing against scientism which makes him close to a modified Habermasian the perfect counterpart to Ferraris' modified Derrida if you will However I'm not sure if I found this part regarding worldviews fully satisfying but I'm gonna read Fields of Sense after this and hope there will be clarifications on the matter

  7. Javier Alonso Masa Javier Alonso Masa says:

    An engaging philosophical journey As a scientist one of my aims is to better understand the world So when I saw the book at my local bookstore and read its title it got my attention I didn't buy at that time but I kept thinking about it and finally decided to get later the kindle version of it And I have to say it didn't disappoint me I would lie if I said I managed to follow all the arguments and reasonings presented by the author to prove his idea that what understand as the world does not really exist but the reading was really enjoyable The author states that whatever can be explained can be done in an easy and understandable way and following that premise he takes on an ontological journey through different engaging philosophical concepts and ideas using lots of examples and different ways to explain them Religion science consciousness art the infinite etc are some of the topics that are carefully presented and discussed here I may not agree with all his arguments but I have to admit that he makes a good point explaining why what he describes as the world does not exist Good food for thought a little but dense sometimes but far enjoyable that I had expected

  8. Bob Chow Bob Chow says:

    How can you claim to be a realist and at the same time say that «the world does not exist»? This can be done if in a catchy act of sophistry you say that actually what you meant by «world» was not the real world we can touch and see but the collections of mental representations we humans have of it But still if I’m not wrong which would be also strange as per Markus’ claim that the list of represented objects and perspectives humans can create is infinite this hardly euates to non existence All Markus is saying is that even if we put them all together we don’t have a complete human representation of the world Old news is so exciting

  9. Max Li Max Li says:

    A fairly good introduction into Markus Gabriel version of new realism philosophy Clearly articulated and comprehensible to someone who’s not philosophically trained The discussions on good religions are interesting In the closing chapter he suggests the potentially of “uality” TV series This is especially relevant today when Netflix series have somehow keeping us from going to cinemas It’s worth a separate thorough discussion

  10. Tpeter Tpeter says:

    I picked this up at rando and it is one of the best and most engaging philosophy books I have read Markus Gabriel writes clear in a very engaging way using everyday life examples from the present time to explain the new realism sounds better in German a philosophical way to viewdescribe concepts like the world and knowledge that is free of the rigid formalism and dichotomies plaguing many other philosophical standpoints

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Warum es die Welt nicht gibt [Download] ➺ Warum es die Welt nicht gibt Author Markus Gabriel – Buyprobolan50.co.uk Where do we come from Are we merely a cluster of elementary particles in a gigantic world receptacle And what does it all mean In this highly original new book the philosopher Markus Gabriel challenge Where do we come die Welt PDF/EPUB ã from Are we merely a cluster of elementary particles in a gigantic world receptacle And what does it all mean In this highly original new book the philosopher Markus Gabriel challenges our notion of what exists and what it means to exist He uestions the idea that there is a world that encompasses everything like a container life the universe and everything else This all inclusive being does Warum es PDF/EPUB or not exist and cannot exist For the world itself is not found in the world And even when we think about the world the world about which we think is obviously not identical with the world in which we think For as we are thinking about the world this is only a very small event in the world Besides this there are still innumerable other objects and events rain showers toothaches and the es die Welt Epub Ü World Cup Drawing on the recent history of philosophy Gabriel asserts that the world cannot exist at all because it is not found in the world Yet with the exception of the world everything else exists; even unicorns on the far side of the moon wearing police uniforms Revelling in witty thought experiments word play and the courage of provocation Markus Gabriel demonstrates the necessity of a uestioning mind and the role that humour can play in coming to terms with the abyss of human existence.