Can a whole cosmology really be instilled by social practices? — frank
I think H's point is that Dasein is a fusion or relationship between subjectivity and the world of trees and cups which are basically what humanity makes of greys and browns. — frank
I think there are fundamentally human practices that give meaning to what we sense. For instance, when we see a mass of grey and brown, it isn't influence from any particular culture that produces a declaration of "tree." It's something more fundamental that has to do with objects in space and time. — frank
There is a social practices aspect to the ontology of the tree. Further there is something Kantian about the ontology of the tree that I don't think varies from culture to culture. — frank
What is Dasein in your view? — frank
Why talk about trees? I realize H was doing a different kind of ontology having to do with ways of being. I got caught up in trees because of what Dreyfus said about what Dasein is: it's not subjectivity. OTOH it doesn't leave subjectivity out. — frank
Can a whole cosmology really be instilled by social practices? — frank
Yes, it's very useful to distinguish those cognitive abilities we have that we share with animals (that are therefore pre-verbal) from those that require the use of words and concepts. Schopenhauer distinguished between Reason (which uses words and concepts) and the Understanding, which we share with animals.
Obviously, animals can distinguish 3-d objects and their position in space, they can distinguish colours and textures, smells, etc. They can distinguish things as defined by such criteria.
There's a whole bunch of stuff like that. You can actually get along at a rudimentary level in life without much use of concepts and words at all - it can even be quite pleasurable (not for the chattering classes, for whom it could only possibly ever be a break, but for most normal people, who are generally fairly taciturn).
Although it has to be said that human children can probably sense the "shape" of social roles before they have the words to plug into their own thoughts. We're exquisitely designed to follow social cues, etc., to "fit in." So a good deal of acculturation in the early years can indeed be pre-verbal too.
But yes, once words, symbols, concepts enter the picture, the cognitive landscape is vastly extended, as is the possibility of various social roles, and acculturation to them. — gurugeorge
"We must be able to understand actuality before all factual experience of actual beings. This understanding of actuality or of being in the widest sense as over against the experience of beings is in a certain sense earlier than the experience of beings. To say that the understanding of being precedes all factual experience of beings does not mean that we would first need to have an explicit concept of being in order to experience beings theoretically or practically. We must understand being-being, which may no longer itself be called a being, being, which does not occur as a being among other beings but which nevertheless must be given and in fact is given in the understanding of being. — Heidegger
I feel like this thread must have split off from another conversation, but I like the question so I thought I'd have a go at it.
I'm split a bit on what you mean. In one sense of cosmology it seems obviously true that a cosmology can be instilled by social practices. You would just need a social practice which teaches cosmology to people — Moliere
Dreyfus: "Thanks to our preontological understanding of being, what shows up for us shows up as something.
A pre-ontological understanding of being is in play as we interact with the tree. — frank
While I think that your post takes Frank's questions in an interesting direction, there's still a glaring philosophical puzzle skulking in the corner: does the acquisition of concepts/language/practices sit atop this basic animal nature (e.g. perceptual capabilities) or transform this nature; in other words, are you arguing for a layer cake conception of human mindedness or a transformational conception? — Ilyosha
I think Bourdieu was touching on the bodily quality of social practices. As you walk through the day, notice how you position your body relative to other people, relative to things. These are social practices that can be unpacked to reveal an array of propositions. — frank
The split is between my emerging view, Dreyfus, and whatever Heidegger was actually trying to say. My view carries more weight with me, obviously — frank
We witness in ourselves a pre-ontological understanding (↪Ilyosha
I think this is right?) of the world. That understanding arrives at vegan-bacon and teeth in an unthinking way. So the objects are there before us with their respective horizons (our expectations about them) without any analysis. — frank
Dreyfus has a chart for how "ontic" and "ontology" are used in various circumstances. I'm not getting it, though. I think I'm going to cruise on and come back to it later. — frank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.