The reason Continental philosophers in the tradition of German idealism, such as Husserl, are so hard to read, is because they were writing in the wrong language. Husserl himself was a mathematician by training and even though philosophers such as Hegel and Kant were not mathematicians, their writings are almost entirely mathematical, and honestly their books become so much easier to understand if they are translated into the language of mathematics.

In fact, the philosophy of Martin Heidegger can only make sense if you start to think mathematically too. Dasein is a concept that is greater than being, and by looking at philosophical problems through the concept of dasein, those philosophical problems cease to exist. You can understand this if you have done a little bit of Teichmuller theory.

But I only come to understand his philosophy by imagining his ideas in my own way. To me Dasein is a higher ideal, an idea based on another idea which is based on yet another idea, which is being, and being is a lower ideal, an idea based on just one idea, the idea of “is”.

The “is” is an idea based on the physical world. Being and Dasein only implicitly correspond to the physical world through the “is” with each level at a higher abstraction than the previous one. 

When we raise ourselves to the realm of dasein, we no longer see objectivity  and subjectivity. I and every other “being” are conglomerated into the sea of existence, merely as existing. By looking at being from the point of view of dasein, we adopt the viewpoint of god, like Ralph Waldo Emerson looking at a colony of ants. 

I think with Martin Heidegger, you really have to have a Ph.D. mathematics in order to understand him.

But how did I come to understand Heidegger? As I have demonstrated, I used my own metaphysics which I borrowed from pure mathematics. 

And so let me tell you more about my metaphysics and of course, the best way to test our understanding is by doing a little proof, and so let’s go ahead and prove Jennifer Suzuki’s Theorem on Chain of Ascending Ideals, shall we?

Inside my world of ideas, ideals, as I have defined in my metaphysics II, are built upon ideas, which are built upon the physical world. There can be infinitely many such ideas, and they are constantly being born, and old ideas are never killed. Rather they live on in ancient records. And similarly there can be just as many ideals, which use those ideas as their building blocks, and they too are constantly being born, and there are infinitely many possible ideals. 

And higher ideals can be built from the lower ideals to form an ascending chain of ideals with each higher ideals containing the lower ideals. Since we have an infinite number of possible ideals, we can form an infinite number of possible chains of ideals. 

But is it possible to have a chain of infinite ideals, such as that each higher ideal is built upon the lower ideals, and so on and so forth and that this chain will never come to an end?

If such a chain of infinite ideals exist, then eventually the highest ideal will come to contain either the entire world of ideas, or extend to the outside of the world of ideas, for the highest ideal that we can imagine still exceeds all our imagination of how such an ideal would appear. Even if we were to exhaust all our knowledge as recorded by our wikipedia, our google, all our newspaper, all our libraries, and all our languages of every kind on earth, since the beginning of time, to the end of time of human civilization, all the words in the world to form the most complicated idea, still, with this finite collection we have come up with the highest ideal, still, this is finite, and now we cannot come up with anything higher, because we have exhausted all our sources and we must try to come up with new ideas.

But here is the contradiction. 

Those new ideas do not yet exist in this world of ideas precisely because they are not invented yet, and so they must, at their inception, still lay outside the world of ideas, and thus they cannot form an element in our chain of infinite ideals. 

But you might argue, you have only proved its non-existence based on the ideas that we have, but your world of ideas also contains ideas that are possible but not yet born. Perhaps in another bigger world of ideas there does exist a bigger ideal which was not yet born and which will continue to expand, and thus it will create an infinite chain …

Here I must interrupt you already. As soon as you have said that “perhaps” then you have already contradicted yourself, because that means you have not yet been able to imagine this ideal yet. If you do not have the imagination to imagine an idea, then this idea, while it may be feasible, still lives outside the world of ideas.

Perhaps it’s not. If I do not know, then it’s not yet in the world of ideas. Possible is different from non-existent. The idea that there are multiple universes is a possible idea in the world of ideas. A non-idea about what might, perhaps, maybe, happen inside a multi-verse of which “I don’t know” is not in the world of ideas. You must imagine it first!

Even in the bigger world of ideas in which you have already imagined your bigger ideal, still you have not yet imagined the ideal bigger than your bigger ideal, and your chain of ascending ideals is still finite inside the world of ideas, and when you extend it to further, you must go outside the world of ideas. 

Also, as soon as you have said the biggest ideal, you have proved that your chain of infinite ideals cannot possibly exist, because you already admit that there is a biggest one.

And yet if you say that there does not exist a biggest ideal, then you are saying that at some point the ideals cease to become bigger and their size become constant, but then the following ideals cannot actually contain the preceding ideals, which is still a contradiction in my universe. Emmy Noether will disagree but she does not live in my metaphysics. In my metaphysics, the ideals get bigger and bigger because my ideals are information, and information (aka entropy) must always increase, and so if you build an ideal that contains the previous ideal, that ideal must be bigger due to increased volume of information. Emmy Noether works with principal ideals in Noetherian rings and that has nothing to do with my metaphysics.

And perhaps you can say that at some point we will have an ideal that is infinitely big. But still, this does not mean that the chain is infinite. There can still be finitely many steps to obtain the infinitely big ideal. 

[By steps I mean a way to construct a bigger ideal from a smaller ideal.]

In fact, there must be finitely many steps, because if the steps were infinite, then we would never be able to get to the infinitely big ideal. It’s like saying that we can get from A to B but the distance between A to B is actually infinite. By definition then you cannot get from A to B if the distance between them is infinite. 

And of course, if you have an infinitely big ideal, which contains all possible ideas, then it also must contain the entire world of ideas. But I just proved in metaphysics II that the world of ideas is not an idea, and since this ideal contains an non-idea, then it itself is not an idea. It must be something else, something that is outside the world of ideas.