I think the situation is both much worse and much better than that fundamental loneliness would suggest.

Much worse: we don't even have that purported level of insight into ourselves. The only epistemic authority we have with respect to our own conduct is one of fiat; usually there is no one else capable of saying why we did what we did. We can't ever "truly" get into our own heads.

Much better: we're not fundamentally alone, our selves are made of interactions we have with others - extracted patterns from the social instances we're exposed to. Our self concept forms in adaptation to our developmental environs. We were never "truly" in our own heads to begin with.

The Department of the Treasury disagrees. They know what you think and you better do what you must.

Much better: we're not fundamentally alone, our selves are made of interactions we have with others - extracted patterns from the social instances we're exposed to. Our self concept forms in adaptation to our developmental environs. We were never "truly" in our own heads to begin with. — fdrake

:up:

I think it means that no matter what other people can't feel what we are feeling or understand what we are going through, they can only look on. The same goes with us, we can never truly get into their heads or fully understand them. — Darkneos

As good of an interpretation as any. Though it is said at the end of the day we all experience or have experienced the same root emotions, desires, and fears, simply that as they relate to our individual circumstances, upbringing, preferences, and beliefs (what's warranted, what's tolerable, what's wise/the best course of action and what isn't) we each end up with a mindset and will (personal preference/opinion) that is as unique as our fingerprints.

Logic and psychoanalysis are very effectively in the right hands in not just understanding (or in the case of an investigation, creating a "psychological profile" of) an individual but offering them solutions or otherwise helping them solve or at least cope with problems using perspectives that they themselves may not have.

That or it's a reference to space aliens. Never leave out the possibility of space aliens.

Heidegger argued we're essentially alone, spending our time trying to escape it. Two paths of escape being the "authentic" and the "inauthentic," although the translator advises us no negative connotation is intended in "inauthentic." In a sentence, inauthenticity is losing oneself in the they-self, authenticity by contrast being the (dasein's) engagement with others in which one is not lost.

Perhaps this quandary exists because for so long we’ve elevated the inner invisible world at the expense of the outer physical world, instilling in our thoughts a divide which does not exist. We cannot exist in both, so I suspect a sort of dissonance occurs.

Heidegger argued we're essentially alone, spending our time trying to escape it. — tim wood

I wouldn’t quite interpret the following from Being and Time as arguing that we are essentially alone. Rather,being alone is a form of Being-with.

“Being-with existentially determines Da-sein even when an other is not factically present and perceived. The being-alone of Da-sein, too, is being-with in the world. The other can be lacking only in and for a being­
with. Being-alone is a deficient mode of being-with, its possibility is a proof for the latter. On the other hand, factical being alone is not changed by the fact that a second copy of a human being is "next to" me, or per­
haps ten human beings. Even when these and still more are objectively present, Da-sein can be alone. Thus, being-with and the facticity of being­ with-one-another are not based on the fact that several "subjects" are
physically there together. Being alone "among" many, however, does not mean with respect to the being of others that they are simply objectively present. Even in being "among them," they are there with. Their Mitda-sein
is encountered in the mode of indifference and being alien. Lacking and "being away" are modes of Mitda-sein and are possible only because Da-sein as being-with lets the Da-sein of others be encountered in its world.”

wouldn’t quite interpret the following from Being and Time as arguing that we are essentially alone. Rather,being alone is a form of Being-with. — Joshs

Which being-with is in my reading a part of the analysis of in-authentic being. But I appreciate and accept as corrective being-alone as a deficient form of being-with - if one couldn't be-with, then how could one be-alone?

Where I get "aloneness" is from Heidegger's observation that we all die our own deaths - and no one else's, and no one else ours - this being for H a window into the possibility of authentic being.

I seem to remember a line from (I think) Leonard Cohen which went something like: "Do we have the strength to be alone together?".

Which being-with is in my reading a part of the analysis of in-authentic being. But I appreciate and accept as corrective being-alone as a deficient form of being-with - if one couldn't be-with, then how could one be-alone?

Where I get "aloneness" is from Heidegger's observation that we all die our own deaths - and no one else's, and no one else ours - this being for H a window into the possibility of authentic being. — tim wood

But there is also an authentic being-with.

“If the being of everyday being-with-one-another, which seems onto­ logically to approach pure objective presence, is really fundamentally different from that kind of presence, still less can the being of the authen­tic self be understood as objective presence. Authentic being oneself is not based on an exceptional state of the subject, a state detached from the they, but is an existentiell modification of the they as an essential existential.”

But then again, as you say, there is one’s ownmost possibilities, which he formulates as being toward death.
The way I read this is, the self for Heidegger is an in-between, not a present subject facing separate objects but fundamental interaction. As inauthentic interaction Dasein is flattened into the normativity of Das Man. As authentic interaction, Dasein is its ‘point of view’.

I yield and leave the floor to you. Um, would you accept this modification: "dasein is its point of view" to dasein is its being with its pov? Point-of-view not having itself in view thus needing somehow something to bring it into view, lest it be essentially unconscious. And, I'm a fan of Stambough's translation, you?

how can I know that though? I have no way to confirm any of what you are saying, that others feel what I feel or even feel to begin with.

Point-of-view not having itself in view thus needing somehow something to bring it into view, lest it be essentially unconscious. And, I'm a fan of Stambough's translation, you? — tim wood

That sounds reasonable to me. I agree about Stambough vs. Macquarie. I don’t know how they got ‘state of mind’ from Befindlichkeit

From a systems perspective, what we are is something like a whirlpool that has formed in a fast flowing river . To what extent can it be said that the whirlpool is alone?

how can I know that though? I have no way to confirm any of what you are saying, that others feel what I feel or even feel to begin with.

You can ask them. You cannot feel what they feel because you are a different human being, but you can share, relate and empathize with another.

how can I know that though? I have no way to confirm any of what you are saying, that others feel what I feel or even feel to begin with. — Darkneos

We hypothesize such things and see if the resulting anticipations bear fruit. We know how we are likely to act when we ‘feel’ any particularity way , and on that basis we form expectations of others whose behavior from our vantage seems to be similar to ours when we are feeling a certain way. We often have to hypothesize about our own feelings too. (was I angry or confused?)

this is the proverbially “I”.

We are all “I”. That is what we have in common but the irony is that this “I” is always explicit to me, to you and to them. No ones “I” is the same as another's. We are ultimately alone in our experience of the sensation of “I” - the sensation of “me”.

However intelligence permits us to identify the parts of “I” that relate to “me” as also havIng significance and validity to “you” and this is the basis of empathy. Empathy in this sense is the awareness that the feelings that my “I” has are equal and comparable to those that your “I” has.

Therefore we can assume that others have a likeness to ourselves that warrants similar leniency when it comes to judgement and effort in understanding. If I can understand myself reasonably perfectly then I ought to attempt to understand others in a similar fashion and give their “I” the time of day so to speak.

If we are all the same “I” then logically we are all capable of demonstrating the best virtues and worst vices of said “I” and therefore there is no reason to assume that one person is better than another . Empathy.

Much better: we're not fundamentally alone, our selves are made of interactions we have with others - extracted patterns from the social instances we're exposed to. Our self concept forms in adaptation to our developmental environs. We were never "truly" in our own heads to begin with. — fdrake

Although this story of the genesis of the self is probably (at least partly) true; it would seem to be irrelevant to our everyday experience of, and feeling about, others. It is a matter of what our feeling is focused on. People just pre-reflectively either feel they are with others or alienated from them. Reflectively speaking, depending on what perspective is taken, it may be thought that either the sense of being with others or the sense of being alone is illusory.

It is a matter of what our feeling is focused on. — Janus

:up:

As inauthentic interaction Dasein is flattened into the normativity of Das Man. As authentic interaction, Dasein is its ‘point of view’. — Joshs

Let me add to your hermeneutics of H. building at the sametime on Janus "focused feeling" :smile:

Let's focus on the anxiety-feeling produced by certain "loneliness". The anxiety is triggered when one finds oneself alone drowning within this sweet infinite ocean, with no worldly supports for one’s existence. Dasein encounters then itself as an individual, ultimately alone. In Heidegger’s words: “Anxiety individualizes Dasein and thus discloses it as ‘solus ipse’”

:100:

Funny, I initially thought this thread was about the anxiety of a geocentric universe as regards sentience.

I seem to remember a line from (I think) Leonard Cohen which went something like: "Do we have the strength to be alone together?". — Janus

Yup, its from Cohen's "Waiting for the Miracle". Partial lyrics:

I dreamed about you, baby
It was just the other night
Most of you was naked
Ah but some of you was light
The sands of time were falling
From your fingers and your thumb
And you were waiting
For the miracle, for the miracle to come

Ah baby, let's get married
We've been alone too long
Let's be alone together
Let's see if we're that strong
Yeah let's do something crazy,
Something absolutely wrong
While we're waiting
For the miracle, for the miracle to come

The anxiety is triggered when one finds oneself alone drowning within this sweet infinite ocean, with no worldly supports for one’s existence. Dasein encounters then itself as an individual, ultimately alone. In Heidegger’s words: “Anxiety individualizes Dasein and thus discloses it as ‘solus ipse’” — Raul

Ah, but don’t forget the paradoxical nature of individuation for Heidegger. Look at the rest of the paragraph you quotes from:


“ For as attune­ment, anxiousness is a fundamental mode of being-in-the-world. The existential identity of disclosing and what is disclosed so that in what is disclosed the world is disclosed as world, as being-in, individualized, pure, thrown poten­tiality for being, makes it clear that with the phenomenon of Angst a distinctive kind of attunement has become the theme of our interpretation. Angst individ­ualizes and thus discloses Da-sein as "solus ipse." This existential "solip­sism," however, is so far from transposing an isolated subject-thing into the harmless vacuum of a worldless occurrence that it brings Da-sein in an extreme sense precisely before its world as world, and thus itself before itself as being-in-the-world.“

So in relation to the OP’s focus on aloneness as being cut off from others, this is the opposite
of what Heidegger is saying. The primary quality of
authentic anxiety is not isolation, but in the contrary, uncanniness, the feeling of not being at home with oneself because one is already out in the world.
Let me give an example:

Two people are talking together. One may be feeling alienated by the encounter, while the other may feel a strong sense of kinship and togetherness with the first person. Heidegger would say the first person’s alienation is a deprivation mode of being-with.
So each Dasein has individualized the encounter between them , but for both interaction and being-with is pre-supposed.

Honestly speaking, I don't think your interpretation is right. It is quite clear when he says... "transposing an isolated subject-thing", then it says "itself before itself".
I gree H is sometimes very cryptic but in this passage he is for me quite clear.

"transposing an isolated subject-thing", then it says "itself before itself" — Raul

Are you saying that you interpret Heidegger as believing in a notion of self as an isolated subject-thing?

Are you saying that you interpret Heidegger as believing in a notion of self as an isolated subject-thing? — Joshs

I said above what I'm saying, no need to repeat it.
Regarding your question of H.'s self, I'm not a big fan of H., I actually do not rely at all on his descriptions of consciousness or the self because he did just that, description of their kind of properties he did not define it.
Heidegger is like a good piece of classical music, it is great to read it, to get into his world of concepts where it looks like he is about to grasp something super interesting about the being but once you have finished reading and studying him you are left with a great and enjoyable intellectual experience, but nothing else, very modest epistemological value.

I said above what I'm saying, no need to repeat it. — Raul

Let’s look at the quote again.

This existential "solip­sism," however, is so far from transposing an isolated subject-thing into the harmless vacuum of a worldless occurrence that it brings Da-sein in an extreme sense precisely before its world as world, and thus itself before itself as being-in-the-world.“ — Joshs

Are you seeing the rhetorical move Heidegger is making? He does this often. When he wants us to realize that he is saying the complete opposite of what we might be inclined to think he is saying , he will warn us that what ever concept he is introducing to us ‘ is so far
from’ our assumption of it that it has the opposite effect of what we think. In this instance, lest we think that Dasein is an isolated subject-thing split off from the world , he tells us that, on the contrary, individuated Dasein is fundamentally as itself
only when it is outside of itself in the world.’ Itself before itself ‘ MEANS in the world , because self for Heidegger IS interaction.

once you have finished reading and studying him you are left with a great and enjoyable intellectual experience, but nothing else, very modest epistemological value. — Raul

No wonder, you seemed to have missed the central
idea of Being and Time.

We are alone but at the same time we are not alone. Sometimes we are alone and sometimes we are not alone. In my opinion, this is one of the contradictory elements of the human experience. Yes, we can confess our thoughts, feelings, opinions, understandings with one another, but it is very difficult for most people to do so. It is also very difficult for most people to share their raw sentiments toward things.

In addition to raw sentiments, thoughts, opinions, people also have different lives and experiences of human life, therefore rendering peoples experiences different. Two peoples lives may be similar but still are different in many ways. So, yes, we are alone in this sense. No one can know, feel, or understand life in your exact interpretation of it. Again, we are alone in this sense.

However, there are some aspects of life that show that people are not alone sometimes. Example, some peoples relationships with their family, old friends, and/or partner. There are some things these people can know and sometimes do know. A great example would be when a mother knows their child is feeling sorrow or a family member has intuition that someone is suffering internally. I don't understand or comprehend why this is the case, spiritually, philosophically, or scientifically, but I know a fact people experience this - me included. So, sometimes when we feel, think we are alone we are truly not even though these people may not consciously know what we are feeling/thinking/going through.

saying the complete opposite of what we might be inclined to think — Joshs

I give up then :chin:

No wonder, you seemed to have missed the central
idea of Being and Time. — Joshs

Right, me and many other people. But good you were able to grasp it :up:

Ah, thanks for that.

Let me add to your hermeneutics of H. building at the sametime on Janus "focused feeling" :smile:

Let's focus on the anxiety-feeling produced by certain "loneliness". The anxiety is triggered when one finds oneself alone drowning within this sweet infinite ocean, with no worldly supports for one’s existence. Dasein encounters then itself as an individual, ultimately alone. In Heidegger’s words: “Anxiety individualizes Dasein and thus discloses it as ‘solus ipse’” — Raul

I agree with you insofar as you seem to be suggesting that Heidegger is overly generalizing the nature of "Dasein". I think being with or being apart is a matter of disposition (basically how you feel), they are existential, ontological or phenomenological possibilities, not existential, ontological or phenomenological absolutes.

If "being with" is taken just to mean that our dispositions are always already socially mediated (mediated, not determined) then I would have no argument with that. Of course I wouldn't because that would merely be stating the obvious.

BUt as I mentioned in the above I have no way to know any of that. IF they feel the same things that I do. All I know is my own experience, everything else is a guess. So even in said relationships it isn't that different from being alone since you are more or less playing either pretend or guessing. You assess them based on deeds, words, etc, but in the end we just end up with what we THINK is going on between us and this alleged other person.

So I guess if you really break it down we were always alone and things like friendship, togetherness, etc, are more or less a lie we tell ourselves.