sorry last thing, didn't even H in B and T, purport to embark upon ontology but really end up providing a philosophical reflection upon the Human as Subject, Mind as opposed to its Natural Organic Reality?

Heidegger considers this classical understanding of being to belong to metaphysics, whereas his fundamental ontology overcomes metaphysics. — Joshs

Excellent point.

I don't see how Heidegger’s ontology, if we are talking about Being and Time, overcomes metaphysics. To me, it expands it, and, with the help of hindsight, not even in any radical way, but rather, in a way which might be expected following those before him like Kant, Hegel, Husserl etc. If you are willing, explain to me how his ontology transcends the conventional approaches preceding him, which ultimately amounts to constructing new expressions out of the bricolage in our minds. Like what I'm doing too. I'm not demeaning the activity, it's what we do. It's just that I'm getting the impression H's ontology enjoys some kind of privileged status when it comes to Truth, and I'd like to know: is that because H, though similarly just constructing so called truths out of Mind, has somehow transcended Mind, all of It, and a accessed Real Truth about Being? And that matters to me because I'm of the opinion that no matter how artful, the only access to (the) Truth (about) Being, is in Being.

Heidegger’s thinking may be a bit weirder than you’re prepared to accept. I noticed you make traditional philosophical distinctions like that between mind and world, fiction and reality, subjective and objective. Heidegger eliminates those distinctions. Dasein is neither mind nor world , inside nor outside, subject nor object. Heidegger’s Being is not an entity, an object, a subject. Being is a happening, a transit, an in-between.

ah! OK. Time to re-read Heidegger. I'll look closely for that. Thanks!

To add my two-cents worth, Heidegger’s fundamental ontology, what he calls also the ontic-ontological difference, is not at all the same thing as the traditional philosophical meaning of ontology as the meaning of extant beingness. — Joshs

The distinction you mention is either a phenomenological or a metaphysical distinction, and as I said Heidegger, I believe, equates phenomenology with his conception of metaphysics, which is not the same as the classical conception of course.

.

but what is your best description of Metaphysics? — Rob J Kennedy

Contemporary metaphysics represents the systematizing of philosophy.

Contemporary metaphysics represents the systematizing of philosophy. — Arne

That makes it sound like a deliberate effort is required. Is metaphysics for skilled specialists, something you should never try at home, or is it a way in which we are thrown into the world?

It has more to do with the dynamics of conformity. Metaphysics is what One does.

It has more to do with the dynamics of conformity. Metaphysics is what One does. — Arne

ok, but I recommend adult supervision. You could poke an eye out.

Is metaphysics for skilled specialists — Joshs

The systematization (schematization?) is nothing new. Plato schematized as have many philosophers throughout history. Some wish to explain everything while others wish everything to be explained.

And in contemporary philosophy, those wishes are evidenced in responses (including some of mine) to questions such as "What's your description of metaphysics?"

I suspect one could Google and find a chart with "Metaphysics" at the top.

didn't even H in B and T, purport to embark upon ontology but really end up providing a philosophical reflection upon the Human as Subject, Mind as opposed to its Natural Organic Reality? — ENOAH

What Heidegger does in Being and Time is consistent with Heidegger's intentions as set forth in the Introduction to Being and Time. Please see Being and Time at page 64.

Is there something about ontology that necessarily transcends human Consciousness — ENOAH

Not all ontologies are the same. Heidegger would say yes. Please see Being and Time.

.

Is there something about ontology that necessarily transcends human Consciousness — ENOAH

Perhaps. Dasein is constitutively pre-ontological. Please see Being and Time.

Also, consciousness is derivative of being-in-the-world. Ibid.

Is there a reason one cannot say of ontology that any truth regarding same cannot be accessed by Language but only by being (that) Being? — ENOAH

The nature of being (ontology) is inaccessible in the absence of being.

A deeper understanding of the nature of being (ontology) can be facilitated with the use of language.

I suspect the above is "truth regarding" all intellectual pursuits.

While my specific inquiries have not been addressed in any way which closes the book for me. I recognize that it is me, who is most likely failing in my exposition, and appreciate your efforts and patience Regardless, I will re-visit Heidegger, now in the context of information you have provided to see if anything changes for me, hoping that it does. Thank you

Sorry, my last post was intended for you.

Thank you — ENOAH

You are welcome. And I appreciate all your comments and efforts. As resistant as I sometimes seem to being pushed, pushing me is the most effective way to force me to examine and/or reexamine my positions and to clarify them. And that is priceless.

So thank you.

my last post was intended for you. — ENOAH

and as somewhat of an aside, I greatly appreciate your initial comment to the original question. I would like to discuss it with you. So at some point in the not to distant future, I will contact you via your inbox.

looking forward to it

Having looked more closely at Heidegger, I get why you say,

Heidegger considers this classical understanding of being to belong to metaphysics, whereas his fundamental ontology overcomes metaphysics. — Joshs

But I think he shirks metaphysics, rather than overcoming it. He pretends to be doing a Classical, pre-Socratic even, ontology, an inquiry into the Being of beings, but ends up constructing his beautiful piece of architecture on par with Kant and Hegel, about Dasein, the Being of the everyday human being. And I admire it and find it useful, even liberating from some of the fixations of previous phenomenology, but I still have my concern that far from overcoming, he fell short.

Had he said, this is an "Ontology" of Human Mind, how (this mechanism of) being is constructed by it; how it constructs Time, and Handiness (and, he could have added, Logic and Reason); for their function how it is passed on in the form of History, input into every offspring, so that we are born already thrown into its world; how each particular, each individual instance of it partakes simply by being there; had he said that (which I submit, though over simplified here, except for the opening, he did, and a lot more like that) but just added, but don't ever think I am doing an Ontology of Real Being. That's not possible; any effort I make is already coming from that magical make-believe place of being thrown into a world of ready- made(s). That best I could do is give you back that world, rearranged and reconstructed so that you understand that; that afterall is all we really care about; we don't care about Truth (still my hypothetical H speaking); had that qualifier, which I believe he was conscious of, been included... Why does it matter besides the joy of the puzzle? Because if we think H or anyone has done anything other than reconstruct out of what is already there, we are at risk in believing Mind can, contra Socrates, actually know, and the many manifest problems with that....

Any so called Ontology of "Real" Being (which term and concept is itself, admittedly already a ready-made, so don't even start, Socrates), any inquiry and answer to an inquiry into Truth, can only be in be-ing.

I like it, but what is your best description of Metaphysics? — Rob J Kennedy

I dived into this thread a bit late, and I respect the posts of the mates.

I was thinking about this, and I searched on the forum to see if someone had already started a thread about this. For me, metaphysics is quixotic. I searched for the definition of the latter concept and the dictionary says: having or showing ideas that are different and unusual but not practical or likely to succeed...

I personally think that I couldn't have defined it better. When we debate on metaphysics, the exchanges are not likely to succeed. We just discuss on a hypothetical basis. We like the idea of what metaphysics holds, but we dislike what should be the solution. We are in an infinite loop here. The metaphysics provides us a basic starting point on philosophy, but it doesn't go beyond that.

On the other hand, I agree with some users and thinkers who see metaphysics as the 'beginning' or the discussion of the beginning itself. Yet this is all ideas, and the theory is passed by phenomenalism.