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.

The issue is 99.9% obvious and certain for you. — Paine

It’s not close to being 99.9% certain and obvious to me.

Whatever point you’re trying to make — if there is one — utterly fails. Both as sarcasm or satire.

But thanks for proving my point.

Statement: “Even if 99.9% certain, one should question.”

Response: “You’re 99.9% certain!”

Maybe Twitter’s influence.

One year into a war instigated and prolonged by the United States.

Looks like China is pushing for a ceasefire. So that’s how grown-ups behave…

Anyway— how disappointing it is that the majority in this thread refuse to question the Western narrative, even if it appears to them 99.9% obvious and certain. Given this is a philosophy forum and all.

I think it shows how reading a lot of philosophy books is probably a complete waste of time for most people. C’est la vie.

My reading life grew through adolescence, especially when I became depressed in sixth form, and by the time I left school reading philosophy and related areas was an integral part of my life. It was partly sparked by the tension between religion and science too. — Jack Cummins

Appreciate you sharing this. It’s interesting to hear what leads some people to philosophy and others to have nearly no interest.

However, that doesn't mean that all people who are interested in are 'troubled souls', but they usually have some reason to go beyond conventional common sense understanding. — Jack Cummins

Yes, definitely, and that’s my point. This stuff doesn’t happen in “objective space.” Neither does science. Neither does mathematics.

Our 'intellectual facilities' like to think they are above it all, not affected by all the good and bad stuff that compose our histories. — BC

Yes indeed. And I appreciate the kind comments.

We are all products of forces beyond our control - not just those of geopolitics and economics, but the ideas and very language we use to communicate. — Tom Storm

language is an excellent example, of course. We simply can’t cut off our heads and start thinking.

Does my social status and my environment contribute to how I think? To a large extent sure. But since I cannot live two lives in separate environments, I cannot say... — Manuel

Right — although you can try, it’s nearly impossible to imagine the ways your life could have gone had you been born into a different family or time, up to and including all your values and beliefs.

We all have an interest in philosophy— otherwise we wouldn’t be on this site. There are reasons we have an interest, just as there’s reasons we take the positions we do and why some thinkers are more appealing to us than others. An obvious (cliched) point, yes, but I thought worth reminding myself of in a public way.

Left politics - being mocked by a school friend's family because my family couldn't afford a dish washing machine. — fdrake

Interesting, but I can’t say I fully see the connection. Was it that being mocked made you more aware of your class position?

Something close to eliminative materialism - have suffered from people behaving incongruously with how they describe and motivate their actions. Minds are made for confabulating. — fdrake

I’m completely confused by this one! The fault could very likely be mine alone.

Philosophy in general - who knows. Threat modelling? Making sense of a world which doesn't make sense? Growing up in places where what intuitions are taught/expected to work don't work at all. Needing to think like this to survive. — fdrake

You needed to think philosophically to survive in a relatively unstable environment— does that sum it up? If so, if you’re willing to flush that out a little more I’d be interested to see how it connects. As I mentioned, I think my own interest was because I didn’t like the uncertainty of death, and this came from a story told to me as a child regarding an afterlife of heaven and hell. Also my trying to wrap my little head around God and nothingness. I also had way too much time on my hands and was way too sensitive to changes (and time). I was nostalgic for 6 when I was 8, etc.

It’s all speculations, and I’m probably either wrong or only shedding light on a small fraction of causes— but the main point is to at least think about it. Which itself is philosophical, in the sense of questioning things.

In the years since, I’ve come to realise that maybe a lot of my quest was motivated by the ‘God-shaped hole’ that was left when I declined Anglican confirmation. — Wayfarer

I suspect philosophy and early religious upbringing are often closely associated due to their questions. Thanks for your thoughtful post — never knew you were a boomer and former (or current?) hippie!

For me, I think it was primarily curiosity. I just want to know how it all fits together. What happens next. It's fun, play. — T Clark

That’s the motivation I’d love to instill in children. Questioning and discovery for its own sake. Alas, I can only partly make the same claim. Too much religious indoctrination, and too neurotic.

That's one of the main points of philosophy - to get beyond those cultural, social, and historical factors to the extent possible. — T Clark

And that may be a fool’s errand. I think that’s Neitzsche’s point anyway. I tend to agree. But you did say “to the extent possible,” so I take your point.