All existents are entities. So yeah, objects are entities. But beings are reserved for those with subjective perception.

As far as I am concerned there is no "cult of Heidegger". — Janus

But...

There is a reverse cult of Heidegger... — Janus

Hmm.

@Wayfarer: you seem to be channelling Sartre's being-in-itself and being-for-itself.

Sartre strikes me as far clearer in his analysis and more astute in his arguments than Heidegger. But then Sartre could write.

But then Sartre could write. — Banno

Heidegger is dense. I gave up reading him.

Never a Sartre fanboy. I did a unit in undergrad, literally couldn't fathom the first page of Being and Nothingness. Later on I began to understand a little of what he said, and that particular distinction makes sense to me, but he's too atheistic for my orientation. (I prefer what little I've read of Gabriel Marcel.)

I just don't see how saying 'being = everything that exists' says anything whatever. There are such things as 'ontological distinctions' which I think are being totally ignored, but I'd better shut up before I start copping abuse again.

but I'd better shut up before I start copping abuse again. — Wayfarer

Tough love. :smile:

The distinction you made seems to me to be worthwhile. That it is not a distinction generally made strikes me as neither here nor there. If you want to make the distinction and can show how it is useful, then there's no reason your shouldn't - so long as you are consistent.

But my thought was that putting whatever your point was in terms of being-for-itself and being-in-itself might avoid a beating from the thought police.

Hey that’s a good idea. I’ll read up on it again, I had only ever given it a passing glance previously. :up:

Heidegger is dense. — Caldwell

That implies that he says a lot in a small space. My impression is rather that he says very little, but in the most obtuse fashion. So:

In experiencing something as something, Dasein comes back to its having been from its future, which is to say, it interprets a global context of relevance via the ‘as' structure. In so doing, it “takes apart' the relation between what it encounters and a previous instance of it by coming back to the previous instance from a fresh context of relevance. Seeing something as something makes sense of what is encountered in a new way, on the basis of a newly implied totality of relevance. This taking apart of what has been put together brings us back to the structure of temporality....(and so on) — Joshs

...all this and more to say much the same thing as Wittgenstein's reply to Heraclitus, that we don't even walk through the same river once.

I can't divorce myself of the impression that Heidegger's style is an affectation. That seems to fit his general self-important demeanour.

But so far as being goes, this otherwise horrid thread has brought me back to Sartre, and if time permits I might reconsider his ontology. I'm taken with the notion, in his SEP article, that the principle of identity holds for being-in-itself but not for being-for-itself.

Sartre was a close reader of Heidegger and acknowledged his debt to him. The distinction between being in itself and being for itself comes from Hegel.

All existents are entities. So yeah, objects are entities. But beings are reserved for those with subjective perception. — Caldwell

No, they aren't.

I can't divorce myself of the impression that Heidegger's style is an affectation. — Banno

:yawn:

Yes, we know. Very original take.

This thread isn't about Heidegger. If you have nothing to contribute, then there's no sense continuing. Go start a more interesting thread. I've tried explaining things several times, and this was ignored. So I assume you're here just to bitch. Talk about "affectation."

Yep.

I've tried explaining things several times, and this was ignored. — Xtrix

I replied to the bits you wrote that I found interesting. I also made my exit, only to come back for Wayfarer, not you. I'm content with my contributions, which have elicited some interest amongst others.

If you don't like my posts, refer them to a Mod. Elsewise, suck it up.

If you have something you would like me to address, try asking nicely.

'Being' is not a predicate.

I'm content with my contributions — Banno

Glad to understand your standards. :up:

The "is" discussion isn't of that much interest to me. The main points I wanted to make are as follows:

(1) From the Greek inception onward, being has been interpreted as presence. Starting at the end of this inception, with Plato and Aristotle, being becomes associated with idea and ousia and sets the stage thereafter for "thinking" being the predominant issue, with man seen as the animal with reason and logos (as assertion) and eventually leading to the modern era in Descartes and Kant.

(2) A conscious (thinking) subject contemplating objects ignores absence -- it ignores the fact that most of the time we are acting unconsciously, and that thinking itself (as philosophical or scientific thinking) is but one mode of human activity.

(3) We should question what being is and thus, and more importantly, what we are -- which means where we're going and what we're doing in the world. Because every action, choice, routine, speech, etc., operates with a "pre-ontological" or "pre-theoretical" understanding of both (the Christian era being a good example).

(4) Our current pre-theoretical understanding seems to be a nihilistic one, largely thanks to the end of Christianity and the rising of scientism, technology and capitalism. There's no common understanding of what we are. It's a very anxiety-provoking, rootless, and directionless understanding of being.

I see all of this as ultimately relevant to both individuals and society as a whole. It's hard to look around and be an optimist, but if real change is going to happen we have to wake up or re-awaken our questioning.

But beings are reserved for those with subjective perception. — Caldwell

Much the same as the distinction between calling a chook "it" or "her". Depends whether it/she is your dinner or your pet*.

I dragged out my old SOD to check, and found nothing supporting this use of "being". Nor does the etymology look promising: *bheuə-, also *bheu-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to be, exist, grow."(ref). That last, to grow, is interesting, perhaps relating to "build" and "bustle". We talk of human being and supreme being, not human existent and supreme existent;

*A fox got in to the hen house and played "shake the chook" last night, with only one survivor, who (not 'which'...) as a result is getting unusual attention and sympathy, including being elevated from "it" to "she".

If you have something you would like me to address, try asking nicely. — Banno

All existents are entities. So yeah, objects are entities. But beings are reserved for those with subjective perception.
— Caldwell

No, they aren't. — Xtrix

Do you have an example of what you would call an ontological distinction?

Do you have an example of what you would call an ontological distinction? — Wayfarer

Yes, the ontological distinction: being and beings.

The former is what we’re inquiring about.

A nice summary!

!. Yes. being becomes associated with the form, soul, eidos or substance, and in turn with God. What Heidegger refers to as "ontotheology".

2. The absolute presence of the thinking subject and its object. Although the absent is still lurking in the form of the transcendent.

3. I'm reminded of the other thread re Collingwood and the idea of absolute presuppositions that we are unaware we are making at our peril.

4. The rise of science, technology and colonialism in the West (which was around the 10th century well behind China technologically) can be understood to be on account of the scholastic idea that, apart from the revelation of the scriptures, God reveals himself in the Book of Nature written for the benefit and understanding and use of Man. There is an interesting reversal in the notion of nihilism as presented by Nietzsche; (if memory serves), he saw Christianity itself as nihilistic insofar as it imposes meaning from above and deprives humans of the possibility of creating their own meaning from the ground up, so to speak.

The twin evils of scientism and capitalism, with their total disregard for nature, stand in the way of any new socialist order which would seem to be the only hope for civilization going forward. That our destinies are determined by a tiny cabal of individuals and giant corporations who would rather see the world burn than give up their power and privilege is quite an horrific scenario to contemplate.

On the one hand we have to listen to what science is telling us about climate change and the devastating effect of capitalism on the ecosystem and on the other hand we cannot expect science (in the form of technology) to save us if we want to survive. As Heidegger pointed out the way to destruction is to see nature as a "standing reserve", rather than as something to be nurtured and preserved.

That implies that he says a lot in a small space. My impression is rather that he says very little, but in the most obtuse fashion. So: — Banno

No, he makes things too complicated what could be explained in shorter, simpler words. From latin definition.

*A fox got in to the hen house and played "shake the chook" last night, with only one survivor, who (not 'which'...) as a result is getting unusual attention and sympathy, including being elevated from "it" to "she". — Banno

Sorry to know about it. :( Yes, give her much love.

...give her much love. — Caldwell

It's interesting to watch her wander around the coop; she's never not had company. One wonders what, if any, sense of absence is there when she doesn't have to compete for the grain thrown on the floor, or when she finds herself alone on the perch at roost.

The relevance to this topic? Does a chicken exist to itself if it is not being watched by other chickens?

For your viewing pleasure, a metaphor for these forums:



Check out who plays Joseph Garcin.

The twin evils of scientism and capitalism, with their total disregard for nature, stand in the way of any new socialist order which would seem to be the only hope for civilization going forward. That our destinies are determined by a tiny cabal of individuals and giant corporations who would rather see the world burn than give up their power and privilege is quite an horrific scenario to contemplate.

On the one hand we have to listen to what science is telling us about climate change and the devastating effect of capitalism on the ecosystem and on the other hand we cannot expect science (in the form of technology) to save us if we want to survive. As Heidegger pointed out the way to destruction is to see nature as a "standing reserve", rather than as something to be nurtured and preserved. — Janus

I'd be interested in how such views are compatible with Heidegger's work on being (and no I am not trying to be a dick) I am always curious how complex theoretical positions translate into or are compatible with world-views such as these.

Some fascinating ideas Joshs.

For me, understanding personal behavior in the context of sociological, historical and psychological influences isnt just a question of locating mitigating factors, but constitutes the central explanatory system for dealing with others. — Joshs

I imagine there might be endless possible readings of a given person in the context of sociological, historical and psychological influences. How do you determine you have an appropriate reading of these influences in constructing an explanatory system?

Does not your statement, "How to determine an appropriate reading of these influences.", just underline the absurdity of the concept of free will.? Being, its sins and responsibilities need to be reframed.

Can you expand, not sure I understand your point.

The mere complexity of so many variables acting through time is a job for the new science of chaos, butterfly effects all over the place. Humanity might not be able or willing to deal with the overwhelming complexity that is the human experience. An experience that conditions and molds the individual. To say an individual is responsible, accountable for his state of being at any given time is simply absurd. The full realization of the truly overwhelming complexity would reek havoc with the ideas of sin or being legally accountable to a legal system.

We'd be in free fall, how is a society to function without sin or full accountability for the individual's behaviors, it would be chaos itself, and perhaps it would be a little to frightening. I think if humanity ever embraces this challenge, it would be a new step in social evolution, a brave new world. Chaos theory and neurology I believe will lay this out, so as to be undeniable. When you express bewilderment, as to how to discern a science of all these variables mentioned, it just state to me, the absurdity of the concept of free will.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I think there's merit in what you say. I was asking Joshs how does one come to an understanding of another person using the tools and approaches he listed when it seems a range of meanings (some contradictory) might be possible. This doesn't mean I don't think it is possible.