Thanks for the reference. This is simply the view most of the folks that are sympathetic to Trump or support him that I work with believe when asked for reasons.

What's your take on the argument of Trump supporters that his cutting of corporate taxes, etc brought jobs back to the US and contributed to lower unemployment?

inhumanly high pain... — 180 Proof

I read this and thought - but why not just choose mortality if you're a masochist?

tolerances — 180 Proof

And then I thought: oh.

I think I basically agree with this. I don't know why but I always find Harris irritating - and not because I disagree with him. I think I agree with most of what I've heard him say - but everytime I attempt to listen/read - I just get irritated. Trivial is probably it. And his endorsement of David Pearce/Transhumanism struck me as dumb. But I've been meaning to give The Moral Landscape at least a chance the whole way through just because he seems to be fairly popular.

Thanks for the suggestions.

I'm not sure either. All I can think of so far is it being a part of his attempt to link each discussion (insofar as the phrase only appears to show up once he has identified temporality as the meaning of care) in something like a thorough fashion (?). Will have to chew on it more.


This has been an interesting thread. My readings of Heidegger have been limited to BT, Intro to M, some of the shorter works and supplemental material - have found your posts to be helpful as well as waarala's and other earlier posts - even some of the criticisms, although the criticisms for the most part seem here to range from the fairly weak to the cartoonish. If nothing else this forum is good for reading notes - upon coming across this thread I think I'll take a look at History of the Concept of Time next or Contributions.

Can we really say what percent of being objects and sound have? — Gregory

I think this question is formulated somewhat strangely - to exhibit this strangeness, consider:

Can we really say what percent of [that which determines beings in their being beings] have? — Gregory

It seems analogous to saying something like:

"Can we say what percentage of a brick's brickness (which itself would be not be a brick) can a brick have?"

or:

"Can we say how much of the essence of sound, as that which distinguishes a sound as a sound, does each sound have?"

That simply isn't 11d chess. — ssu

Agreed (the usage was sarcastic).

Watch what he does, not what he says. — fishfry

Trump blusters about military strength and then avoids war. — fishfry

[Edit to last post: just saw your response to ssu which touched on GOP question above...]

What he says appears to me to cater to warmongering energies within his supporters (see also Nos characterizing the justification of Kyle Rittenhouse's actions as "slaying people" and "unleashing fury" for an additional example in the Trump thread) along with the campaign imagery already mentioned and "saber rattling" rhetoric.

If Trump is ignorant of this - and your assessment is true - this makes him an ignorant, ineffective 'man of peace' - and presumably also - in language he might endorse, a loser. It would be #verysad if this is the case.

If he is tacitly endorsing these energies or outright encouraging them and/or fully cognizant but ignoring them in what he says but somehow nevertheless "striving for peace in what he does" - this seems to me to lead to something like contributing to a more warmongering public in order to get votes whilst playing 11d chess as StreetlightX put it elsewhere - which is both very difficult to believe and to whatever extent accurate would make him seem to me to be even more of a sloppy disaster.

Still doesn't make sense to me, but thanks for pointing them out. — Xtrix

Been trying to untangle these, and playing somewhat fast and loose here, checking the index in Stambaugh to references to "inauthentic temporality," I'm gathering something like the following:

Authentic temporality and inauthentic temporality are linked with finitude and infinite time, respectively, toward the end of section 65 (331/304 Stambaugh).

In turn, finitude is linked both with the unity of the ecstasies and "my death." Infinite time/inauthentic temporality is linked with our everyday dealings with others, our entanglement with the they, and our flight from death.

"Looking away from finitude, the inauthentic temporality of entangled everyday Da-sein must fail to recognize authentic futurality and thus temporality in general." (424/389).

"Herein lies an inauthentic awaiting of 'moments' that already forgets the moments as they slip by. The awaiting of inauthentic existence that makes present and forgets is the condition of the possibility of the vulgar experience of time's passing away." (425/389-390)

In the above quote, "inauthentic awaiting" appears contrasted with anticipatory resoluteness and authentic being towards death.

...

"Thus if we demonstrate that the 'time' accessible to the common sense of Dasein is not primordial, but arises rather from authentic temporality, then, according to the principle a potiori fit denominatio, we are justified in calling the temporality now set forth primordial time." (329/302)

...

"The problem is not how does 'derivative,' infinite time 'in which' objectively present things come into being and pass away, become primordial, finite temporality, but rather, how does inauthentic temporality, as inauthentic, temporalize an infinite time out of finite time?" (331/304)

...

So, playing fast and loose here, a sketch of what I think he's doing here (or if one likes, what he seems to be attempting or what he thinks he's doing/attempting) is showing our vulgar concept of time as an endless succession of nows to be taken as the expression of inauthentic temporality - which is our understanding of time in terms of our everyday dealings and entangled being-with others ("public time"), which is a levelling down of primordial time (the ecstases, finitude, and the potentiality-of being-a-whole disclosed by my death).

The vulgar concept of time I'm taking to be the expression (qua objective presence) of "public time," and the latter to be grounded in the ecstases/finite time.

The expression "Temporality reveals itself as the meaning of authentic care" (326/300) perhaps should have simply read "Temporality reveals itself as care" (?) as his playing with "authenticity" here lends itself to confusion over the possibility of something like "inauthentic temporality but authentic care."

(Open to corrections of course - these were just some initial impressions.)

If you're making it a political party association, why are you 1) ignoring Bush Admin and 2) ignoring Trump qua political party Dem/opportunist?

I also found the reports of our 'presence' in Venezuela during pandemic curious.

(I'm not trying to defend 'Obama/Hillary/Kerry' on this score. I just don't see him as a man of peace at all.)

I was thinking of this as well - along with the many images shared on social media by supporters of Trump atop a tank in a cartoonish fashion, things exploding everywhere, Trump holding a bazooka or rifle. We also have neocon backers of Trump - the American Enterprise Institute is one, I believe. And then we have the Erik Prince association with the Administration through DeVos. Trump's book, Time to Get Tough, has a chapter simply entitled, "Take the Oil." I also recall a sort of to and fro "saber rattling" between Trump and North Korea. I also recall when Trump first announced his "America First" campaign in such a way that basically said something like we're steering the world order unilaterally - that's how it sounded to me at the time anyway - with the fairly ridiculous sounding sugar coating "as all nations should put their nations first" - I wondered how "peaceful" he struck the rest of the world watching. Trump kicking around the "China Virus" in concert with Pompeo reportedly encouraging the G7 to refer to it as the "Wuhan Virus" also raise an eyebrow.

However karma for a Kantian like myself is absolute. It is the only absolute discovered by speculation. — Gregory

Is this referring to passages in Kant?

I noticed this too. Also - the addition of "evil" was odd...

1959, looks like.

If you copy/paste the following:

University of Sussex › blogs › ...PDF
Martin Heidegger - Sussex Blogs

into google, you'll find a downloadable pdf version of On Time and Being (1969) with an intro/commentary by Joan Stambaugh. It also includes The End of Philosophy and the Task of Thinking.

Also seen Letter on Humanism available in pdf format as well in searches.

Starting Derrida, Voice and Phenomenon and noticed an old reading group thread for the same here so will check that out. Also noticed there is a pdf version of an earlier translation as Speech and Phenomena that pops up upon a Google search.

Side note, sheer curiosity:
Coming across the old reading group, I wondered - why was TGW banned?
Also noticed Landru Guide Us and Prairie Dog Handler are gone - did they just leave?
They seemed a frequent presence on the old forum.

(More of a lounge question I suppose but prompted by coming across the thread and didn't seem worth starting a new one over.)

No, I think it’s wise for the president to show support to the victims of riots, and I think it’s a good move politically. — NOS4A2

I can’t think of any leader having the balls to do so. — NOS4A2

My point is that a majority of people inform themselves through the bits and pieces offered to us by an unethical, activist media, and not from politicians. This is the source of your division. — NOS4A2

A divisive media I can agree with. Balls and wisdom - unappreciated but for those with eyes to see if not for the former - seems a bit of a reach.

Nobody is interested in trying to unify the country, nobody cares about social cohesion. And the winner of the election, whoever it might be, is full of shit if he thinks he can then unite and heal the country. — ssu

I share this view as far as the Republican-Democratic frontrunners go. Interestingly, I just recently came across an "Articles of Unity 2020" push for Gabbard, Yang, McCraven, Ventura, and others as potential last minute alternatives, though I don't see them getting much exposure to have any impact on November as of yet, nor do I know much about the organization behind the push other than it seems spearheaded by Brett and Eric Weinstein and looks like it may have some possible backing by Peter Thiel of Thiel Capital.

It will get more ugly. But to blame Trump for the division, when most if not all of the rioters inform themselves through a hostile media, seems to me to be short-sighted and to attribute omnipotent power to one man. — NOS4A2

A hostile media by no means absolves Trump either. And while it being dubious to blame one man "for omnipotent power" is in a general way a fair point, in the case of the POTUS, I'm not so sure your remark holds as much weight as you appear to think it does. To suggest that Trump hasn't encouraged - perhaps even enjoyed - the hostile media seems to me to be a difficult view to hold. Bannon related Trump's view that "there is no such thing as bad media" or something to that effect.

It looks like it's easier to prove the opposite. — TheMadFool

It looks like it's easier to prove the opposite of what than what? Was this a reply to Gus?

If we look at the omni-attributes of God and imagine a multitude of beings, say X, Y and Z possessing them, it follows that X = Y = Z. — TheMadFool

This strikes me as a fast and loose, albeit formulated ostensibly differently, version of Spinoza:

There cannot exist in the universe two or more substances having the same nature or attribute.

If several distinct substances be granted, they must be distinguished one from the other, either by the difference of their attributes, or by the difference of their modifications (Prop. iv.). If only by the difference of their attributes, it will be granted that there cannot be more than one with an identical attribute. If by the difference of their modifications—as substance is naturally prior to its modifications (Prop. i.),—it follows that setting the modifications aside, and considering substance in itself, that is truly, (Deff. iii. and vi.), there cannot be conceived one substance different from another,—that is (by Prop. iv.), there cannot be granted several substances, but one substance only. Q.E.D.

By substance, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception

By mode, I mean the modifications[1] of substance, or that which exists in, and is conceived through, something other than itself.

By attribute, I mean that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance.

By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite—that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.

If there were two or more substances - two or more of that which is conceived independently of anything else - and they had identical attributes/(constitutive essences) - then either they would be the same single substance or in any case we could never know which one of the 'many' we were conceiving of - and if there were one among many, they would presumably be contingent upon or subsist in a substance anterior to the 'many' whereby that which distinguishes one from another has its essence and subsistence. If they differed in modification, by definition this would lead us back to that which was modified which would find a similar unity.

Given this to be the case and falling back on Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles principle, it seems we're forced to accept that there's only ONE God. — TheMadFool

Spinoza appears to be in agreement here.

Is there another proof that there exists only 1 god. — TheMadFool

Spinoza appears to offer one supposing God is substance and:

PROP. XIV. Besides God no substance can be granted or conceived.

Proof.—As God is a being absolutely infinite, of whom no attribute that expresses the essence of substance can be denied (by Def. vi.), and he necessarily exists (by Prop. xi.); if any substance besides God were granted, it would have to be explained by some attribute of God, and thus two substances with the same attribute would exist, which (by Prop. v.) is absurd; therefore, besides God no substance can be granted, or, consequently, be conceived. If it could be conceived, it would necessarily have to be conceived as existent; but this (by the first part of this proof) is absurd. Therefore, besides God no substance can be granted or conceived. Q.E.D.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3800/3800-h/3800-h.htm

But this would appear to be a pantheist conception of God, not an anthropomorphic god.

This was the first and only time I ever saw anything of Peterson. He basically stated right from the get go he hadn't even read Marx apart from cramming the night before - or effectively so - on the Manifesto. That made the debate seem more like a publicity stunt than a serious debate. Hadn't given him any thought since this thread popped up - apparently he has a couple million followers on YouTube now.

I was more concerned about the free press they and other such groups were given. — NOS4A2

I would say I shared this concern, but have been under the understanding that there were indications Miller, and others, likely Bannon, had exacerbated/exploited identity politics as you appear concerned with.


In any case, what strikes me as odd is the concern with racism qua "the path of Biden's identity politics" but not a concern with any of the indications of racism we already have with varying circles of Trump supporters.

My understanding was that in the case of Miller, we have someone more than externally endorsing someone but present within Trump's circle.

So in this case, do you feel this is insignificant/not worth considering, a difference not worth considering, or otherwise find other parallels in Dem or left candidates?

You do not think there are reasons to suppose a higher support of Trump among alt right and racists or a significant difference of support?

Do you find the alt right element to be negligible now, negligible before any supposed "turn" or both?

So in your view, Spencer is a valid indicator of racism in Biden's base but Stephen Miller is not an indicator of racism in Trump's? Do you not view 'alt right' as racist or as Trump supporters or do you not think there are racists that support Trump?

Do you not view racism as a factor in Trump's base?

So the first section says very little specifically until a little over halfway down - vague appeals to bailouts and/or stimulus packages - followed by a reference to a 15 dollar minimum wage, the PRO Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, reversing corporate tax cuts, making corporations pay their "fair share," and speeding up the "10 year investments" he has already announced. In the Muir interview he mentioned raising taxes on salaries on those making over 400k.


I didn't see a link for "Today, Biden is releasing details on the first part of his agenda, with a separate factsheet on his strategy for manufacturing and innovation to ensure the future is made in America, in all of America, by American workers," however.


Which do you have in mind that strike you as unappealing and/or damaging?

Have you read Biden’s policies? — NOS4A2

I'm looking for these now. Curious - where did you read them (or anyone else here)? Biden's site, a newsletter, Wikipedia, etc?

2. If you're concerned about the balance of power, vote Democrat for president, and Republican for house or senate. — Philosophim

This is the first reference to such a concern I've seen...
I've wondered how "lesser evil efficacy" would measure against "evil gridlock." I don't have any arguments right now for one or the other but it was a thought in any case.

Nietzsche's "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense" and "On the Use and Abuse of History for Life" can be found online to read if they are not already included in Basic Writings and Portable Nietzsche, and are not terribly long.

I view his neologisms as his attempt to speak about something "so far as we can speak of it at all" in an effort to have his "form in congruence with its content," to "let what shows itself show itself as it shows itself from itself." This seems to me to be the phenomenological feature and a reflection of what he means by "fundamental ontology."

Does Da-sein refer to the same thing as subjectivity or subjective experience? Sure.

However, if it's a common word in German, that receives a peculiar sense with the hyphenation, and he's using it both to refer to everyday existence but speaking from and to a philosophical voice, my understanding has been that he wishes the word to carry with it all of these senses not in a deliberate act to confuse or seem profound where he is not, but because what he is getting at, or think he's getting at, loses something (conceals) once it gets settled/'congealed' into this or that concept/objective presence. Perhaps also to take up N's suggestion of experimentation for a "philosophy of the future."

The neologisms might also "perform" the modes of being of the coming-to-be of beings as objective presence - without themselves quite 'congealing' into ready-made concepts. I don't have the text in front of me but the sections on conspicuousness and obstinacy - that give rise to something as objective presence seem to me here applicable to the neologisms themselves - whether he intends this or not, I do not know - but it actually strikes me as fitting.

The endless hyphenation in translation at least I always took to reflect an emphasis on the unity of the terms despite a certain necessity for division "so far as a can speak of it at all."

The neologisms also resist pre-conceived notions as ready-made concepts from others or the temptation to think they are the same or the exact same as what we find in similar thinkers.

In these ways, I would say H stikes me as simple at times, deceptively simple at others.

To be sure, reading the English hyphenations in BT in some sections gets beyond overboard, but then Heidegger himself in the cited video earlier recounts his attitude changed such that as his thought developed he left that behind.

He also agreed with critics and those that have an interest in his work that his effort is simple - or rather simple to begin but hard to maintain/carry out.

I see this as also why he blends the poetic with the philosophical in other writings - to resist the concealing in the elucidation insofar as every elucidation is also a concealing, and to maintain, as tim wood mentioned earlier in this thread, a kind of being "on the way."

In the traditional metaphysics there is an important basic distinction between essence (what) and existence ("that"). This distinction can't be applied to Dasein (living subject). Dasein's "essence" is its "to be"*
[...]
"The 'essence' ["Wesen"] of this entity lies in its "to be" [Zu-sein] . Its Being-what-it-is [Was-sein] (essentia) must, so far as we can speak of it at all, be conceived in terms of its Being (existentia) .
[...]
The essence of Dasein lies in its existence. Accordingly those characteristics which can be exhibited in this entity are not 'properties' present-at-hand of some entity which 'looks' so and so and is itself present-at-hand ; they are in each case possible ways for it to be, and no more than that." — waarala

I'm afraid waraala's attempt is not very helpful. — David No

I think Heidegger is suggesting that we cannot think of essence and existence in the same way when applied to humans as when thinking about things/objects/concepts.


When he says the essence of a person lies in his/her "to be," he is referring to possibilities for being, possibilities which are already determined and possibilities that, as some are realized, others are closed off - new possibilities are re-determined.


It's become clear I will never be a basketball player, but that was sort of clear when I was a kid. — Kevin

Almost all philosophy, except for the most dogmatic positivist, distinguishes between the mode of existence of beings in general and that of the human being. — David Mo

This last does not seem to me to bear on the foregoing in any direction. In particular, I am not understanding how H's distinguishing between Dasein "as its 'to be'" versus beings present-at-hand elicits the trouble in understanding him/referenced passages because (?) "almost all philosophy, except for the most dogmatic positivist, distinguishes between the mode of existence of beings in general and that of the human being.".


A comparison with Sartre would be interesting, but at a glance I get the impression that, for Heidegger, Sartre is still making the distinction between essence and existence, "taking existentia and essentia according to their metaphysical meaning" in the statement "existence precedes essence," whereas for Heidegger, "this distinction can't be applied to Dasein (living subject)." Whether or not H misinterprets S, I don't know.

Thanks for this.

Thanks for the source/correction.

I see no difference - just can't recall the exact wording of the quote/note.

Where's the difference? — David Mo

Difference between what?

In my opinion Heidegger realized that Sartre was drawing his own conclusions from existentialism, which he found unbearable. Sartre was probably using the concepts in his own way. I don't see anything wrong with that. Rather, I find Sartre far more digestible than Heidegger (Leaving Critique of Dialectical Reason aside). — David Mo

I don't see anything wrong with it either. From what I've read of Sartre, I'll agree on the digestion as well.

At the very beginning of B&T, Sartre famously quotes him in the intro to his Being and Nothingness. I don't remember where he denied it, but it was commonly discussed among students of his. I clearly remember the matter coming up in class, over fifty years ago. The response from the instructor was "he made a mistake." — Gary M Washburn

I seem to recall a note in BT in which he says Sartre misunderstood him in "existentia precedes essentia" or "existence precedes essence" but that such a formulation is appropriate for something like existentialism - or something to that effect but would have to look it up. I may be off a bit.

We do not fear being dead. [...] "Idle talk" is far more genuinely what language really is. — Gary M Washburn

There seems to be a couple of things going on here - I'm not entirely sure whether this is all posed contra Heidegger, an interpretation or re-appropriation, or a bit of both, but it seems as though it could be teased out/unpacked in a few different ways..

He stated, and later denied he stated, a lot of things. Most famously, to 'be is to exist'. right there in black and white at the start of B&T. — Gary M Washburn

Is this to say that he said to 'be is to exist' and then later said 'be is not to exist' or later said 'I never said that to be is to exist?'

In either case, could you point me in the direction of where either or both were said/where I can find these? And/or other referenced denials?

I would like to discuss what an archaic thinker like Heidegger can say to the men of the 21st century. — David Mo

https://youtu.be/MtATDlUSIxI — Heidegger