"What you claim is "perception," isn't."
"No one is proposing a theory, certainly not a "subjective" theory."

Heidegger: B&T:
" The future is not later than having been, and having-been is not earlier than the Present."

I am talking to my father about going to visit my mother's grave. There is an obvious irreversible time sequence. Anyone can perceive a similar one without the need for theories. Heidegger's claim that the future is primordial needs to be argued. One has the right to ask "Why?" But it would be absurd to ask for reasons that my mother's death is prior to the conversation that precedes the visit to her grave. This is how we perceive time directly. Without theories. So do you.

Words, words, words.

"Reading Heidegger is not easy. I've found I've had to read several books, several times. Best to avoid secondary sources at first and make sense of it yourself, if possible. My personal opinion is that no one can really interpret Heidegger clearly without at least 6 months or so of reading. "
Pretending to understand Heidegger without help is like pretending to climb Everest in a bathing suit.
6 months is a joke. That's what it took me to understand what I don't understand and what others who presume to understand don't understand.

"And why is that important?"
Of course, it is!
I'm talking to my father about my mother. My father is here. My mother is not here. She is dead. I wish she were! My mother is present only in our memory. But they are two very different ways of existing. I experience my father's presence as objective. My mother's presence is subjective: that is, my father and I do not remember the same things in the same way or give them the same meaning.
Any philosophy that does not take into account these simple starting facts about time is illusory. I think Heidegger hides them under an avalanche of pretentious words. His twisted language is a screen before the simplicity of the primary facts.
Avoiding illusions is important for many obvious reasons.

" If you're arguing that "subjective" time is a sequence of nows, of a future being not-here-yet and a past being no-longer-here, etc., then what you're describing is indeed the ordinary conception of time and which has been influenced by Aristotle and the tradition generally"

You (Heidegger? ) are mixing theories about time (succession of homogeneous instants) with perceptions of time (past not present). The perception of the past and the future as something that is no longer or not yet here present is more authentic (i.e. immediate) than Heidegger's vision of the primacy of an "already been" future. Only if we speak in terms of "meaning" can we say that the future "is here" as a project. But meaning is subjectivity, in the face of the common perception of the irreversibility of time.

Then, you (Heidegger?) introduce your subjective theory of time with a false excuse: that the common perception of time is theory. Moreover, you assume that this statement validates your attribution of "authenticity". False: that your theory is an alternative to another does not imply that it is better.

"...future does not mean a now that has not yet come, but a coming in which Dasein comes toward itself in its ownmost potentiality -of-being. "

This is one of the many occasions that show that Heidegger was only interested in subjective time (temporality). Here it is about the evolution of the self towards a supposed primordial identity.
He claims to have overcome the subject-object opposition. How? Falsely, in my opinion, like all phenomenologists... that I have read.

It is very simple.

"His valid reasons for "changing" the common usage of the word "time" is partially based on this new analysis, and partially based on a historical and linguistic analysis".(Xtrix)

I'm waiting for you to refresh my memory with some of those valid reasons you mention. Obviously, I don't think they exist.

Note: I insist: I am not talking about any objective concept of time. I am talking about time lived subjectively. I believe that there are certain common traits in all this subjectivity. I believe that Heidegger's "existential" description is in contradiction with them.

Paragraph 314?
Being and Time has 83 epigraphs.
What do you mean?

"I've gone over this several times as well."
My memory is bad and I don't remember you doing what you say. Can you repeat any of those valid reasons?
Thank you
(Actually I don't think you've commented on any. )

"- in fact he spends hundreds of pages distinguishing between "time" (which he reserves for the ordinary conception) and "temporality" (which is his analysis of time as experienced,"
I am referring to the commonly lived time (temporality). I put special emphasis on that).

If you don't quote any valid reason you are blocking the discussion.

"So you stick with Aristotle"
I do not adhere to anyone.
I am affirming the common perception of time that Heidegger violates without valid reason.
You don't need clocks to have a different perception of the past, present and future as different elements of a lived process. My objection is that Heidegger makes an aberrant mix as we saw with Parmenides.

In my opinion.

Gregory:
"I don't think you appreciate philosophy are it's deepest levels"
Wells are not good for philosophy.

Let me paraphrase that paragraph. — Gregory

Is this Heidegger or St. Teresa of Jesus levitating?

As far as I see, he never once mentions "authentic temporality." That doesn't make sense. — Xtrix

Tell Heidegger.

It arises from inauthentic temporality, which has a source of its own. The
conceptions of 'future', 'past' and 'Present' have first arisen in terms of
the inauthentic way of understanding time. (B&T: 326/374)

This way of Being-alongside is the Present-the "waiting-towards" ; this
ecstatical mode reveals itself if we adduce for comparison this very same
ecstasis, but in the mode of authentic temporality. To the anticipation
which goes with resoluteness, there belongs a Present in accordance with
which a resolution discloses the Situation. In resoluteness, the Present is
not only brought back from distraction with the objects of one's closest
concern, but it gets held in the future and in having been. That Present
which is held in authentic temporality and which thus is authentic itself, we
call the "moment of vision". (B&T: 338/387)

I found a dozen references to authentic or inauthentic temporality in 10''. Advantages of computer science.

That "ordinary conception of time" has been destroyed isn't a criticism. — Xtrix

He does not destroy anything. He changes the common sense of a word without giving a valid reason. When he speaks of temporality he is speaking of something else that is not temporary. According to you what reason do you have to "destroy" the common concept of time? Any sensible person understands that the football match to be played tomorrow is not now and that the car I bought yesterday is not in the future. For him everything is part of the same amalgam. That is, a play on words that serves only to mislead.
I understand that mystics and Buddhists like this verbal entanglement. I do not.

Why is it impossible to maintain what you refer to as "absolute skepticism"? — TheMadFool

An absolute skeptic would think this conversation be absurd. I'm not talking. I have no absolute proof that you, my computer, the chair, etc. exist.
The immediate consequence of doubting everything is to do nothing. Which is a way like any other to die of starvation.

For my part, I prefer more moderate and less dangerous solutions. I have already mentioned them. One : trust the natural intuition that tells me the world exists. Until someone presents proof that the world does not exist. Two : accept as evidence what has a high degree of probability.

If you do not accept the same criteria you should stop responding to my comments. That would be the only coherent thing to do.

Well, it's not impossible to relax the rules every now and then to make an idea or a theory more digestible but where are you going to draw the line between what is knowledge and what is not knowledge then? — TheMadFool

There is not a single branch of knowledge, except the formal sciences, that seeks absolute knowledge. Each of these branches has its criteria to distinguish between knowledge and other things, such as faith, opinion, etc. Natural sciences have strong criteria. Other branches of knowledge are more ductile. This does not mean that there is no separation between science and opinion, or between rational knowledge and faith, reality and dream. It simply means that the claim of absolute knowledge leads to absolute skepticism, a position that is impossible to maintain in practice.

Look, "life is a dream" is fine for Calderón de la Barca's theological comedies, but if you intend to take your dreams for reality, I recommend an urgent visit to an analyst. Really, what do you intend with that? I understand that Descartes posed an Evil Genius that made you doubt everything. He was looking for an indubitable method inspired by mathematics. Do you think that his failure to find an absolutely certain knowledge implies that there is no truth or lie?

Notice he doesn't mention temporality here. — Xtrix

I suggest that you read the context of the texts I have provided. In any case, in the two texts I have provided, temporality is impied by means of future. In the first and second texts Heidegger is talking about temporality.

I don't see it as a mess really. — Xtrix

Because you don't pay attention to what I say and you respond to something else that comes to mind. The problem is not that they form a unity (at least not the one I was aiming at) but that in that unity the future is defined in terms of having been (past).

In any case, again and again it's always helpful to keep in mind the separation of "ready-to-hand" and "present-at-hand" modes of being, — Xtrix

This is exactly what you do from here. Nothing you say refers to my objection. You recite what you more or less know and forget the terms of our debate.

Frankly, I don't know and, in fact, nobody does. — TheMadFool

This is only true if you are talking about absolute knowledge. If you low the bar, you should consider the reasons I have already given in the previous comment.

I am not going to start a discussion about who bears the burden of proof. They are usually endless. I simply hope you will consider the reasons I have given for not taking into account the hypothesis that the world we live in is a simulation.

I will be waiting.

I want to ask you a simple question: Do you know, for certain, that this world, your waking world, is real and not a simulation? — TheMadFool

Absolute certainty, no.

I believe that all people have the powerful natural intuition that the things we perceive correspond to something real. Science and common sense tell us that they are not always as we see them, but that does not mean that they do not exist. I see no reason to suspect that this intuition is false. Do you have any proof that the world we live in is a simulation? As long as you don't, it seems to me an expendable hypothesis.

If you don't mind, we can move on to something else.

However, the waking world could itself be a dream — TheMadFool

How do you know that the screen of a TV is not the screen of a photo camera?

Answer: because they work differently.

The question: How do we know that when we are awake we do not dream?
Answer: Because we function differently than when we dream.

What you may want to ask is:
How do we know that when we're awake we capture something out of the mind? Couldn't it be that there is nothing real as a reference of our perceptions as it happens in dreams?

It's less literary, but it's more accurate.

we don't know if the material world we live isn't just another dream — TheMadFool

Sorry, you know the real world is not a dream because it doesn't have the characteristics of a dream.
In a dream you walk on a street in a different way than on a real street; in a dream you walk on a street and this street changes in a different way than in the real world. Etc. The coherence in your behavior, the consistency of the vital background, the continuity of life in time, etc. everything is different. So you know that the real world is not like the world of dreams. You are in the real world, so live this real world.

if we assume, for whatever reason, that this world is the only reality, the same logic would apply, no? — TheMadFool

Sorry, what logic?

Basically, is the world we've decided to accept the material world all there is? Or is there another level of reality we can wake up to? — TheMadFool

There is no absolute reason to choose the real world instead the dream world. All the reasons I have suggested here are reasonable and common sense, but nothing more. But I would not like to see some beloved person behave in real life as if the dream they have had were more real. I am afraid -I am sure- he would be doomed to disaster.

It seems to me that this is a subject for fantastic and romantic films. Not for the world we live in.

Again, all I wanted to say is that I think that to make the world of dreams an entity separate/independent from the material world is bad thinking. — Daniel

I think so too.

Dreams are on the edge of consciousness. That is why they can be directly caused by an external event. A loud noise can make us dream that we are in a bombed-out city. Then we wake up and realize that it was our cousin who was driving nails in the next room. The fact is that we quickly associate hammering with reality and bombing with fiction. The question is why. And hence the reasons I had suggested.

Not easy, but I wouldn't say unintelligible. That "projection" and "anticipation" are the basis for ordinary concepts about the "future" as a "not-yet-now" isn't all that hard to understand: — Xtrix

Maybe you could explain it to me then, because this is something I'm certainly not clear on. I'm not even sure if "authentic temporality" really makes sense. — Xtrix

Ley us see:

His letting-itself-come-towards-itself in that distinctive possibility which it puts up with, is the primordial phenomenon of the future as coming towards. If either authentic or inauthentic Being-towards-death belongs to Dasein's Being, then such Being-towards-death is possible only as something futural [[i]als zukünftiges[/i]], in the sense which we have now indicated, and which we have still to define more closely. (B&T: 326/372-3)

Two things are clear here: There is an authentic and an inauthentic temporality and both are based on "futural”. But what temporality means is gibberish.

The character of "having been" arises from the future, and in such a way that the future which "has been" (or better, which "is in the process of having been") releases from itself the Present. This phenomenon has the unity of a future which makes present in the process of having been; we designate it as "temporality" (B&T: 326/374)

This is a mess because Heidegger identifies past, present and future in a "unity". To build that unity he equates the future with "having been", that is, what is normally understood as the past. And the present is "liberated" from itself we don't quite know how nor from what. In other words, the construction of that unity destroys the common meaning of the word "time", without proposing an intelligible alternative.

In my opinion.

Once again I insist that all this has nothing to do with the Being of Parmenides, who is one and immobile.

NOTE: one of the traits that define authentic temporality is that of finitude. Inauthentic temporality is conceived as infinite. The authentic one as finite, that is to say, being for death.
One would be tempted to say that what happens is that the common man thinks time in objective terms, while Heidegger is thinking in subjective terms, beyond his particular life. But this is not the case. Heidegger prevents us from considering time in objective vs. subjective terms. Phenomenology is supposed to overcome that alternative of vulgar thinking. How? Another mystery.

If you are a materialist you will say that everything that happens is part of matter and that dreams are nothing but brain activity.
Okay. But what dreams are made is one thing and another thing is if they represent, reflect or report something real, that happens outside the brain. This is what we are discussing now. Outer or external reality.

This unfortunate unknowability of threads themselves makes discussion of philosophy quite impossible. — unenlightened

I'm sorry to have caused you such a commotion. But I am open to discussing any means of knowing things in themselves that you wish to propose.

Projection was to always put the truth in the future; it's like having a friesby that you keep tossing away once it returns to you. — Gregory

Hey, what language do you speak? I'm just saying that because of the accent. I hadn't thought of comparing Hegel to a potato chip, but sometimes Heidegger seems more like a sweet potato promoted to the generalate. I hope that doesn't lead to a third world war. With the civil war I have enough.

Heidegger 's thoughts were always in projection. Once he found a truth he projected it.. — Gregory

What does "projection" mean?

Being is that which shows itself in the pure perception — Xtrix

What is pure perception? An intellectual vision, since it is pure. But there is nothing in Parmenides that suggests contemplation in the sense of intuitive grasping (I use intuition in the Kantian sense), but reasoning. Of course, if we equate every thought with "pure perception" everything is "vision". But it is an unjustifiable assimilation that only serves to create confusion of language.

All of this is admittedly very strange, what do you think he's driving at in Being and Time? — Xtrix

George Steiner is my main guide to (not) understanding Heidegger. In his own words, the subject of time "is watertight even by Heideggerian standards". Indeed, Heidegger creates around the concept of temporality a tangle of metaphors, neologisms and undefined concepts that make what he says unintelligible. A labyrinth only suitable for lovers of the cabala and masochists. :yum:

What I am clear about is that Heidegger distinguishes between authentic and inauthentic temporality. What I am clear about is that the authentic one is the one that corresponds to his ideas. What I am also clear about is that either of the two temporalities includes past, present and future as becoming. And it is clear that Parmenides denies becoming, since Being is one and immobile.
Therefore there is no reason why Heidegger accuses Parmenides of thinking Being in the mode of time. It does not make sense.

In my view thinking a philosopher/economist was fundamentally right is the definition of putting him on a pedestal. — ssu

Then the world is full of pedestals.

Seriously, it is very different to say "I think X is right" than to say "X is infallible in everything he says or does".

What does parochial knowledge have to do with atheism? — Cobra

It was a joke,

How would you say the possibility for error decreases to insignificance just because it has a consistency with multiple perceptions? We all continuously see (experience) a blue sky, and multiple other things. — Cobra

We consider that the sky or the mountains are not really blue because we give priority to certain conditions in which we assume that our perceptions are more reliable. Science says that the blue color of the sky is due to light scattering and has a theory that explains this. Then we give preference to science. Our observation tells us that the mountains that we saw from afar are no longer blue when we approach them. We give priority to closeness. The question of reality is nothing more than a way of calling to what we consider to be the most constant and coherent. The final criterion is reliability in practice. If you pretend to go through life considering that what you have dreamt is real you will give yourself a good amount of slaps against reality. I mean against what we call reality. It was a good criterion for our fathers and it is good for me.

As you will see I am not talking about things in themselves. I'm talking about phenomena.

Just because we experience things doesn't mean we know them or they exist outside of a mental construct. — Cobra

But it seems to me that since Kant it has become clear that things themselves are unknowable. We talk about what we can talk about, which are the phenomena, and we distinguish those that have a certain degree of (real) objectivity from the subjective ones. It works.
You don't want to call that knowledge, well. Hume said it was a reasonable belief. It works for me.

You mean parochial knowledge? — Cobra

No. I am atheist.

but I wouldn't call it necessarily clear perception of what is real - since it is subject to error, bias and illusion, as all perceptions. — Cobra

If the perceived object is perceived by more than one sense (sight and touch, for example); has a sufficient duration (continuous or intermittent); is consistent with different perspectives, specially when is perceived by several people, etc., the possibilities of error decrease till insignificance. Much more if what is perceived falls within an explanatory theory confirmed by other experiences. If we want to say that this gives a 100% probability, of course. Nothing in this world has a 100% chance to arrive, except death and taxes.

I would say it exists not because it is immune to mental manipulation (we do this all the time), but because it persists whether we mentally "manipulate," it or not. — Cobra

This would be the consistency. Resistance would say that mental objects can change with mental manipulation. I imagine that Trump has no hair. But I can't change his strange hair props in reality. This is real.

Wouldn't reality be universal regardless of any consistency and coherence(?) from men. — Cobra

Reality will be what it will be. But men call something that meets those conditions (or simiilar) real. If you want to know how something is real regardless of the way men know it, you are lost on the road to nothingness. I'm not going in there.

But do you imply that the Chinese Communist Party wasn't before Marxist?

Or does this mean that Marx is beyond criticism to Marxists? Marxists really put him on a pedestal for worship with anyone straying of the path of wisdom is a heretic? — ssu

On the first question I do not have enough information about the history of the Chinese Communist Party. I am talking about the current Chinese Communist Party.

On the other questions: I believe that the criticism of Marx is perfectly legitimate. I have raised some in this forum.
But you confuse criticizing Marx with saying that you are following Marx's theory when you are not following it. In any case, I know Marxists who do not put Marx on a pedestal. They simply think that he was fundamentally right. That's why they consider themselves Marxists.

But this is why I said "It comes down to how we're defining time." — Xtrix

I don't know how time can be defined without reference to change, evolution or whatever you want to call it. I would like to know how you do it. Seriously.

Whether Heidegger considers Parmenides as part of this I'm not sure — Xtrix

What do you mean, we don't know? The text we are discussing accuses Parmenides of having directly raised the problem of Being in temporal (present) mode. And Heidegger assimilated it to Aristotle. I don't have time to look at it now, but I think I remember it quite well.

Apparently not, just look at the speech from Xi Jingping. So quoting Marx and Engels is giving up Marxist rhetoric? — ssu

It is rhetorical. Because they limit themselves to generalities and avoid entering into the fundamental concepts of Marx's thought, which would leave them with their asses in the air, as they say in my country. For them Marx is a fetish. This usually happens with almost all religions and ideologies. I also know many democrats who are only democrats in name.

Well, A. James Gregor thought otherwise of fascism as "a variant of classical Marxism", — ssu

You can play with words as much as you want. The socialization of the goods of production or the dictatorship of the proletariat were the devil for the fascists. That's why they fought and fought violently.

form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy


Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community. — ssu

These characteristics serve the Chinese regime, Mussolini's fascism and all dictatorships that have always existed. To talk seriously about fascism, we need to refine it a little more.

The depandency of dreams on reality makes dreams real. Dreams are a part of ourselves in the same manner we are a part of this world instead of ourselves being a part of (our) dreams; in this way, dream worlds are not something apart/different from reality. — Daniel

If you do not distinguish the mental world from the material or external world you are confusing things.
Dreams, imaginations, hallucinations exist in the mental world.
Stones, Covid-19 and my wife exist in the external world. (Some of them luckily, others by misfortune - the virus!, don't think badly).

I would say the "concept" of real came from speculation, thought, consciousness/mind and inconsistency. — Cobra

In general and with some exceptions, everyone has a clear perception of what is real and what is not. But this is not discursive knowledge, but immediate knowledge. We can analyze this. Analytically, reality depends on resistance and coherence.

Resistance or adversity means that reality resists your attempts at physical or mental manipulation.
You say that the stone is real because it resists your manipulation. That is why you say it exists.
Coherence means that the objects you call real are consistent with each other (regulated if possible) and with other men. They form a "world" with meaning or structure.
You say a dream is not real because it is inconsistent with what we call the real world and other dreams.

I would not ask what is real, but what we call real.
We call real those referents that fulfill a series of conditions = something that is presented under certain conditions. For example:

To be perceived with a certain constancy.
To be perceived by more than one sense.
To be perceived by the greatest possible number of people.
To be perceived under certain circumstances of "clarity".

To present a certain degree of resistance to our physical and mental activity.

To be part of a real world, that is, a structure in which some parts are related to others on a regular basis. Interdependence.

We especially call real those objects that enter the scientific system within a certain level of consensus.

The object that fulfills these conditions we say is real, or that it is real with a more or less high probability.

Applying this type of criteria with more or less rigor we can reach the conclusion that we are before objects that are not real, even though they may appear to be so: a mirage, a hallucination, a dream, a fantastic or virtual image, an entity of reason, etc.

As we can see, these conditions refer to a semantic and epistemological field. We say that "we know" or "we believe".

Even if the economic system is more closer to classic fascism than theoretical marxism. — ssu

The Chinese leaders are not Marxists, nor do they have a moustache. They long ago gave up Marxist rhetoric for pure capitalism. In other words, they are as Marxist as Putin is a Democrat. Or less so.
The comparison with fascism is superficial. They have in common that they are capitalist police states and state interventionism in the economy. So does nationalism. Some comparison can be made, as long as it is not attributed to Marx, whose basic theory was the abolition of private ownership of the means of production and workers' internationalism. That is, quite the contrary.