So imagine substituting “jews” for “they” in B&T. Would that make any sense whatsoever? No. It’d be completely incoherent.

I think it’s worthwhile to go back and look to see if there are any connections, given what we know now. I’m just not yet convinced of any.

Who are those from whom he does and does not distinguish himself? It is the Volk (the Folk) from whom he does not distinguish himself. — Fooloso4

But you said that— he didn’t. At least not in your quote. I read it as conforming to an ambiguous “they”.

Is this the claim that is being made in the reviews or in the book itself? Or in this thread, even? — Jamal

Not that exact wording, but something like it yes. If not, who cares? Plenty of thinkers — and artists, and scientists — were fairly nasty people. If the point is to shed some light on that, cool. Not sure what it has to do with questions or arguments though.

As a matter of hermeneutic scruple, SuZ should be read in that cultural-ideological context; I don't think my characterization above is hyperbolic or uncharitable considering the Völkische Bewegung milieu. — 180 Proof

No, I don’t think it’s uncharitable. You make interesting points.

I just don’t see much in the text itself — you mentioned “blood” and “soil,” but where in the text does it mention either to any significant degree? I think the anti-modernist claim is also wrong — I see why people would think it, given the focus on simple tool use and simple, average ways of interacting with the everyday world — but he’s not anti-technology or anti-modernity, in my reading.

Anyway — if it was all an elaborate system created to justify deeply held antisemitic and German nationalist sentiments, then why is there so little evidence in the text for it?

Being and Time was published in 1927, well before Nazis came to power. There’s nothing in there about Nazism. There’s a long analysis about the question of being, its history, and its relevance to what a human being is and what time is. If all of this was somehow an elaborate justification for antisemitism or racist theories, I see zero evidence for it.

That being said, it’s become clearer that Heidegger was an asshole and a nazi. But I figured most knew that already. Doesn’t undermine his analysis, in my view.

So when there’s more violence, I guess Trump is off the hook again. Since he said “protest.” Nothing predictable about all this…

MAGA nation seems riled up. Lots of Twitter posts, oh no!

All because their criminal hero is throwing a toddler tantrum over (maybe) being held accountable for one of his many crimes -- this one being fairly minor compared to others.

I think the Fed is now busy saving the banking system... again. — ssu

One consequence of fighting inflation, as Powell has stated, is that ordinary Americans will have to go through some "pain." We know what this means. They want unemployment higher, wages to "stabilize," etc. But yes, right now they're worried about the banks. Good! Fuck 'em. Puts them in a real bind which I'm very happy to see. Of course, they'll choose the banks first and foremost.

All this talk of inflation during a time of unprecedented wealth and prosperity. Soaring profits, massive taxpayer handouts to Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Things are great. Sure, it’s great for the top .1%, but according to the law of trickle down, it’ll eventually come to the lower 80%.

Eventually.

In the meantime, something must be done about the fact that we gave working people checks two years ago — and higher wages for, you know, risking their health to keep the economy going. That cannot go unpunished.

Please try to bring it back to arguments.

All these best picture winners of the 80s I never saw until recently — Chariots of Fire, Ghandi, Out of Africa, the Last Emperor, etc— have such similar feels: they’re mostly boring as shit, but have some great features — scores, some great photography, some great acting. Sprawling epics. But the stories and pacing and length — oy.

A lot of political correctness to boot.

They also were the start, in my opinion, of Oscar-baiting movies, carefully crafted for critical praise. Dances with Wolves— a 1990 film and movie I’ve always loved — is in this tradition too.

Simple: whatever age I am when I die.

Now that I think about it, perhaps this is a better thread to discuss being: What is Being?

That seems to be the only interesting part of his claim.

ChatGPT — Wayfarer

We’re citing ChatGBT now? Have you really been reduced to this? :wink:

As I asked already, does Jung mean by this that consciousness is a pre-condition for the existence of rocks?
— Wayfarer

Yes.

Rocks are part of the world, right? So no world, no rocks.
— Mikie

So you agree then that the world is created by consciousness. — Wayfarer

Depends on what we mean by “world,” of course. If we restrict world to linguistic, perceptual or abstract entities, then sure. But he says consciousness is a precondition of “being.” If by ‘being’ he means the world of aforementioned entities, then sure. But I’m not convinced of this.

I think he’s taking an idealist view, basically.

As I asked already, does Jung mean by this that consciousness is a pre-condition for the existence of rocks? — Wayfarer

Yes.

Rocks are part of the world, right? So no world, no rocks.

Rocks are not conscious, but they are still “things” — they are still beings in that sense. They have existence, they “are.” They show up in the world for a human being to perceive and label “r-o-c-k.”

“Beings” are things. “Beings” is not reserved strictly for sentient beings. It can be, sure, but that’s not the common usage in ontology.

In my defense, I'm English. — Isaac

Ah, I forgot. In that case, I’ll let it slide.

Damn you Isaac— Couldn’t just give me 5 minutes, could you?

Some good news:

https://apple.news/AfEh6Vmu5T8OrSjoVW2rFNg

Yeah, it’s from my book. But I’m not at home right now. I can get you the print edition and whatnot.

traditionally in philosophy, anything that can be said to be is a being.
— Jamal

That is one I will need a citation for. — Wayfarer

This is comical.

Do you really doubt this claim? Are you implying that Aristotle wouldn’t say that a rock is a being?

Rocks are beings. Are rocks sentient beings, like human beings? No.

Flowers are beings. Bach’s fugues are beings. Numbers are beings. Parachutes are beings.

At least according to what I — and traditional ontology — mean. You seem to understand this. But if you do, then what’s the problem here?

Aristotle, Aquinas, Heidegger, and many others use the term to mean anything that is, i.e., anything that can be said to be. Nobody has to follow them in this usage, of course, but Wayfarer actually attempts to correct people who use the word in this traditional way, by saying that, actually, only sentient individuals are beings. — Jamal

Yes indeed. In this thread I believe Wayfarer is saying that Jung’s use of being is more in line with sentience, but I still don’t see how. In that case Jung would be arguing that consciousness is a precondition of sentience — a rather odd thing to say.

All things that are, conceptually speaking, are be-ings just as long as they continue to be. — Janus

Yes.

I suppose I've derailed the thread. We'll see what Mikie does about it :razz: — Jamal

I can’t do shit — yet. But I’m working on a mutiny.

Yeah— maybe you can take it from here. It’s not off topic, in my view, but wasn’t what I wanted to get into the weeds about myself. I was more interested in those defending Jung.



He may claim he’s departing from rationalism, although I don’t get that from the text you cited — but in any case, I think many people probably think they’re rebelling against Descartes in some way, but end up talking exactly like him when it comes down to it. Jung seems to be no exception. Appreciate the attempt— maybe I’m missing something.

Like I said, this is thinking of it psychologically. My 11 month old son experiences sensation, he does not have any concept of being as such. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But he “is,” and has a preontological understanding of being (a Heidegger phrase) or pre-theoretical concept of being. He may not have a great concept of life either. Doesn’t mean he’s not alive— even from a psychological point of view.

Likewise we don’t cease to be simply because we haven’t abstracted its meaning.



It’s not a distraction, but I agree we don’t have to continue on. I’ll leave it by saying that I find Taoism fascinating, but am no expert on it. Appreciate the quotes.

If you think of it psychologically, consciousness, as sensation, is prior to the abstraction of being and of the recognition of the external world as external.

"Being" presupposes non-being, it's an incoherent concept otherwise, but consciousness as simply sensation precedes any such distinctions. — Count Timothy von Icarus

All of this seems confused. Consciousness is not simply sensation, and being is not simply an abstraction — any more than life is an abstraction. But if it is, then so’s consciousness and sensation.

Merely proclaiming that consciousness = sensation, and sensation is prior to all abstractions, is only shifting definitions. Besides, one (or something) has to “be” before it senses anything whatever.

That being is “incoherent” has quite a history. Heidegger has useful things to say about it. It’s a tricky term, but not at all incoherent. We use it and interpret it constantly, even if there’s no agreed technical definition. Likewise “energy” isn’t incoherent, although it has several definitions — including a technical one in physics. I know what people mean when they say it in context, although if pressed it would be perhaps more difficult to pin down.

I don't know if he's expressing a 'standard metaphysical view — Wayfarer

I think he’s repeating Descartes. Descartes’ dualistic ontology is fairly standard, I’d say. Even on the forum.

You will just say, for example, that inanimate things are not beings, to people who are using “being” to mean anything, animate and inanimate, which is. And they are in line with standard philosophical usage, not you. — Jamal

Thanks for putting the time in to write all this out in detail. I’ve been down this road with Wayfarer too many times already. But you’re quite right: by “being” I mean anything whatsoever; by “a being” I mean any particular entity whatsoever. I don’t know how to be any clearer.

The Tao, the primal oneness, comes before distinctions are made. — T Clark

Naming, consciousness, brings things into existence. — T Clark

In that case the Tao is being as a whole — existence. The individuated beings (things) that we differentiate in perception have as much existence an anything else, as beings.

If there was no one around to call an apple an apple, it wouldn't exist as a separate object, only as part of the inseparable whole. — T Clark

It wouldn’t exist as a linguistic entity— but animals interact with apples all the time. They seem to differentiate between them and what we call rocks just fine.

A non-conscious being is not actually 'a being' but an object or a thing. — Wayfarer

As I’ve stated many times before, I’m not using “being” in the sense of sentient beings. Beings, in my usage, means “things,” or “entities.” It’s anything whatsoever.

So the self ceases to exist when asleep. — Banno

Well wakefulness ceases anyway. The “self” is too loaded a term to say anything useful about, in my view.

If being is interpreted as existence I agree. — jgill

Yeah…although now I realize Jung may have meant being in the sense of being a human. But it doesn’t look that way.

I’ve scrolled through several pages of this horrible thread, and regret it. Figured I’d say so.

The Rasmusson Poll isn't a scam, but it isn't a highly rated polling organization either. — BC

:up:

A stupid poll by a crappy right-wing institution, whipping into a frenzy other right-wing goofs like Scott Adams.

I’m glad he’s been canceled. Not because of what he said— but because “Dilbert” has always sucked. Wish they did it years ago.

Name one cheerful philosopher. — Ciceronianus

Neitzsche!

then 16 I lost 'my religion' (I'd realized I did not 'believe in' Catholicism or the God of the Bible) and then @17 had my first philosophy class (textbook – From Socrates to Sartre). — 180 Proof

By TZ Lavine? That’s great. They have her reading her own material on YouTube from a series years ago which I like a lot.

Your post was interesting— thanks for contributing.



Thanks for clarifying. I understand now!

I feel there's a connection between philosophy and a willingness to look analytically at things which hurt the eyes. Do you? — fdrake

Sure. The questions we call philosophical are often hard to ask and look at.

At some stage in this confessional thread one might start to see a pattern; so far the obvious pattern is that philosophers like to display their examined lives, and think it serious and worthwhile to do so. — unenlightened

Yes — and that religion plays a big role in our paths to philosophy, which is interesting to me.

Yeah I just completely missed that one. Too focused on preventing castling, and moving too quickly. Even Rd8 would have been better now that I look at it.

I resign. I should have done so a while ago probably.

To add insult to injury, I get the comment from the computer basically saying that I blew it:



Thanks, computer bot guy. :roll:

Good game.

That’s not the reason I blundered. You’ve played a very good game and deserve the win. I was just giving you shit because I’m used to playing 3-10 minute games. For the record.

No trap, just a mindless move. C4 was a blunder and most likely cost me the game. This is what happens when you spend less than a minute on a move. :roll: Credit to Hanover for not overthinking that one.

Watching “Cunk on Earth” on Netflix. Very funny.

challenges to that view — Paine

That’s the point. There’s very few “challenges” to alternative views, beyond what you yourself have demonstrated nicely.

Sounds pretty certain. — Paine

Seems to be accurate when looking at the evidence. But by no means certain.