OK, that helps. And I very much agree. What's funny is that I am usually in a good place when I hang around this forum, largely because I have so much fun, which is not to say it's never difficult here, but mostly it's a blast. I usually withdraw because I'm neglecting work, neglecting my wife. In that world, away from my derriodicy, I do get down in the funk and the muck of life.

I am slow to make big decisions. I could be more economically secure by now. I have lived irresponsibly in that sense. Thrift is easy for me, but commitment is difficult.I do crave a simple life as the background of my dreaming....

Searle, and Deasy, may be buffoons, but doing thought-laps around them doesn't change squat) — csalisbury

I think I agree with the analogy applied to real life. But on the level of art or poetry, that doing-laps-around is everything, which does make the game a little cruel and maybe petty.

This is also the problem of addiction in general: problem is (this kind of) thinking can justify itself as Poetry (it isn't) in a more convincing way than other addictions. — csalisbury

I do find it addictive, and I see why you don't like calling it poetry. Way back when I first started talking 'foolosophy' online I called it 'transcendental buffoonery.' (F. Schlegel) It's strangely both serious and ridiculous. I wonder what the real Socrates was all about. I'm tempted to think of it as a late kind of spirituality. I can joke that philosophy is poetry, but it's also a serious as a toilet. It does some necessary dirty work in my life. But doesn't poetry proper also play this 'religious' role?

Define addiction generally as: 'a defense against change' and you can go a long way in understanding why a certain kind of thought endlessly renews itself. — csalisbury

'Defense against change' is great, and it kind of paraphrases a critique of metaphysics (a flight from time and chance into eternal certainty, if only of the structure of things.) But of course this critique can fall in love with itself and become a bot. (So how I worked it back to the bot theme? Why do I repeat all of this about 'repetition repetition repetition' ?) So clearly I agree. I guess I'm just ambivalent. I get furiously invested in the game, add a couple of metaphors to the same old buffoonery toilet, and get disgusted with the repetitious addiction. Eventually I'll miss it, maybe after having read something that freshened it up just enough. And I can work all of this in, as I'm doing now. That's part of it. This is what I found so intoxicating in Kojeve/Hegel at first. The result included every bit of the engendering. The engendering was the result, simply grasped as a whole that included that final grasping as a whole (or really just a hole.)

Why does Ulysses (or Portrait of The Artist) work? Because Joyce doesn't edit out Stephen's earlier confusions, he works them into everything that comes after, as essential. — csalisbury

Yes, like that! 'History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.' I keep quoting it because it's so rich, so Hegelian without the jargon.

I'd also love to hear what you make of the 'poison in the ear' as a metaphor for conspiracy theory in Hamlet. As the actor playing the ghost, Shakespeare poured poison in Hamlet's ear. That poison was the story of Hamlet's father being poisoned in the ear. And Shakespeare the author poured the poison of Hamlet in our ears. (We can also talk about 'like a whore, unpack my heart with words' and 'they are actions that a man might play.')

Yep, there is always the bot, and the bot doesn't want to die (like Hal). The purpose of Hal is protective, but to protect you, you can't leave him. He's the full psychological suite of defense mechanisms. The trick is to get you to identify with him, and to see threats to him as immediate threats to you: Suddenly a story about a murder becomes the murder itself (what we haven’t talked about is Claudius, who may well be Hamlet) And then suddenly the idea that a sea journey can only ever be the simulation of a sea journey. You don't have to avenge your father's death, because understanding the meaning of his murder would mean being murdered yourself, and besides none of this is real.

Click, whirr, it's back up and running.

I think we've run the course here, where we've come to can't be talked about, at least in airlock-talk, which will renew itself endlessly. (Or it can suddenly, slidingly, try to bring everything together 'too soon', if you know what I mean) One of the few good things about repetition is that once you become aware of a cycle, and begin to pay attention to it, as cycle, you can learn more about each part and its function, every time you repeat. Our conversation being a condensed version of particular cycle, I think I'm understanding better, I recognize that this is the part where it would behoove me to exit. Thank you for the talk

Till next time, my airlock brother...

That Hamlet was Claudius all along is a perfect outro, btw. I love that.

@path

Re: Heidi ...

We do not belong to those who only get their thoughts from books, or at the prompting of books,-it is our custom to think in the open air, walking, leaping, climbing, or dancing on lonesome mountains by preference, or close to the sea, where even the paths become thoughtful. Our first question concerning the value of a book, a man, or a piece of music is : Can it walk? or still better: Can it dance? — F.N.,The Gay Science

:death: :flower:

How Heidegger Can Make You a Better Guitarist

That's interesting.

Heidegger discusses "being" a lot where Nietzsche thought it was a "vapor" and "mistake" --

I just thought I'd throw out there that as I recall, there is a footnote to the Stambaugh translation of BT in which Heidegger 'approves' of Nietzsche's characterization of being as a 'vapor' - I don't have a copy in front of me so can't cite the exact page/passage but thought it might be of interest.

I just thought I'd throw out there that as I recall, there is a footnote to the Stambaugh translation of BT in which Heidegger 'approves' of Nietzsche's characterization of being as a 'vapor' - I don't have a copy in front of me so can't cite the exact page/passage but thought it might be of interest. — Kevin

That's exactly right. He also "approves" of this characterization in Introduction to Metaphysics. What he's clear about is that both our "understanding of being" and the question of being itself has been completely lost, to the point where it has now become, as Nietzsche says, a "vapor" and "mistake."

But obviously, if he agreed completely, there would be no book "Being and Time," so that's worth keeping in mind as well. Being is still worthy of question, and Heidegger considers it the question of philosophy and metaphysics.

Being is still worthy of question, and Heidegger considers it the question of philosophy and metaphysics. — Xtrix

Elaborate please. Also: do you agree with H that "question of being" is "the question"? Why or why not?

I am under the impression that for Heidegger, it's not so much the question in terms of answers but instead in terms of asking, and asking accurately. Accuracy being a matter of successive approximations, it is always "on the way." And I gather that for the mature Heidegger, "on the way" is all we ever are or can be. I am at an age where I can relate to that, but I will accept correction.

Elaborate please. — 180 Proof

Sure. Heidegger will say, multiple times, that the question of what it means to "be" has been forgotten, essentially since the inception of philosophy with the Greeks (ending with Aristotle). He believes being is that on the basis of which we define ourselves and everything else in the world, and that although the question has been forgotten we still walk around with a "pre-ontological understanding of being" - which has gone through many variations (creature of God, a subject with desires to satisfy, etc) but which has remained Greek through and though.

As far as it being the question of philosophy, he's consistent with that point: he sees philosophy as ontology. "Why are there beings at all instead of nothing?" Is the question of metaphysics, according to him.

Do I agree with it? Yes I do. It's almost a truism, though. Our concern for various domains of things in the world - all the sciences, all the arts - only happens on the background of "being," and so questioning what "it" is is indeed the core of philosophical thought.

Heidegger is a FFVII antagonist and we’re on the seventh page! :|

He believes being is that on the basis of which we define ourselves and everything else in the world, and that although the question has been forgotten we still walk around with a "pre-ontological understanding of being" - — Xtrix

It intrigues me that someone like Heidegger could focus so fiercely on this idea that forms the basis of everything he thought and then either find that engaging with the Nazis was the logical consequence or live a life completely contrary to the philosophy he worked so hard at.

I have to look that up. I've never played Final Fantasy, but that's interesting he makes an appearance there.

It intrigues me that someone like Heidegger could focus so fiercely on this idea that forms the basis of everything he thought and then either find that engaging with the Nazis was the logical consequence or live a life completely contrary to the philosophy he worked so hard at. — Brett

It intrigues many people. But I don't fully understand what you mean by "contrary to the philosophy he worked so hard at." Heidegger has no ethical philosophy, really. Later Heidegger is preoccupied with language, technology, and poetry -- but never ethics.

Personally, I don't see that he did anything wrong himself -- he never hurt anybody, so far as I gather. That he was swept up in the political goings-on of the time is no different than being swept up in Trumpian policies -- which are far more dangerous than Hitler (based on his environmental policies alone). Hitler killed millions; Trump is helping to kill off the entire species.

Both are mistakes, no doubt -- but if we have an issue with the German people for going along with Nazism, how will history judge not only our fellow Trump supporters, but also we who are against him - for not doing more?

Besides, in philosophy, science and art you can make significant contributions and yet be a complete jerk or even psychopath. We don't have to like the personality. I'm of the opinion that you can separate the two.

But I don't fully understand what you mean by "contrary to the philosophy he worked so hard at." Heidegger has no ethical philosophy, really. Later Heidegger is preoccupied with language, technology, and poetry -- but never ethics. — Xtrix

Yes I understand that. My laziness in writing. I wasn’t referring to the ethics of the situation but the way he approaches us and the world and keeps drilling down. That sort of attitude, fierce as I called it, that idea of “forgetting of being” suggests, to me, someone who would be very conscious of why he does something and what’s behind the doing.

I have no way of, or interest in, judging him, except in how it might happen. Someone who seems so tuned into the blinkers we apply to ourselves and yet went wrong himself and then later regarded what he’d done as stupid (I can’t remember the exact words).

In some ways I can see that being the grounds for people rejecting him and his work; not because he worked with the Nazis but that it blew back on the grounds for his thinking and writing.

In some ways I can see that being the grounds for people rejecting him and his work; not because he worked with the Nazis but that it blew back on the grounds [of] his thinking and writing. — Brett

Exactly. For all his oompah oompah on "the question of the meaning of being" (or, according to Rorty, "myth of being"), Heidi's daseinanalysis is as autistic as it is solipsistic - I agree with the critical observations of Karl Löwith, Theodor Adorno, Emmanuel Levinas, Hannah Arendt, Walter Kaufmann, George Steiner, et al - which makes his indefensible political "stupidity" somewhat intelligible.

He believes being is that on the basis of which we define ourselves and everything else in the world, and that although the question has been forgotten we still walk around with a "pre-ontological understanding of being" - which has gone through many variations (creature of God, a subject with desires to satisfy, etc) but which has remained Greek through and though. — Xtrix

But he ended up recognizing that he had been unable to give an explanation of the problem of Being. So much effort and so much praise for Hitler for nothing.
In my modest opinion neither he nor those who followed him were able to give an explanation of the fundamental concepts of his doctrine or of his affiliation with the Nazi party. His deliberate obscurity and changes of position made it impossible to fully understand ten pages in a row of Being and Time. In my opinion.

[Heidegger] ended up recognizing that he had been unable to give an explanation of the problem of Being. So much effort and so much praise [of] Hitler for nothing. — David Mo

Ja. Gelassenheit :point: 'Scheiße-sein'.

update:

A morning spent reading Beckett - e.g. long passages from his Trilogy (Molloy, ...) or plays in the register of, and just after, Godot - confirms, IMHO, the fundamental shallowness of Heidegger's oeuvre: his "myth of being" (Rorty).

Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity. For the crowd believes that if it cannot see to the bottom of something it must be profound. It is so timid and dislikes going into the water. — F.N., The Gay Science

I have no way of, or interest in, judging him, except in how it might happen. Someone who seems so tuned into the blinkers we apply to ourselves and yet went wrong himself and then later regarded what he’d done as stupid (I can’t remember the exact words). — Brett

What he'd done -- meaning joining the Nazi party or his earlier work? Because neither is true. He infamously never apologized for being part of the Nazi party, although he once referred to it (in a letter I believe) as a "blunder."

In some ways I can see that being the grounds for people rejecting him and his work; not because he worked with the Nazis but that it blew back on the grounds for his thinking and writing. — Brett

In what way? I'm not sure exactly what you mean here.

For all his oompah oompah on "the question of the meaning of being" (or, according to Rorty, "myth of being"), Heidi's daseinanalysis is as autistic as it is solipsistic — 180 Proof

Solipsistic? This entire sentence is so vague it's baffling. How is he solipsistic? Because he focuses on human being? He emphasizes again and again the importance of other people.

And what do you mean by "autistic" in this context?

I often feel with you, 180, that your tone appears critical of Heidegger, and yet there's never anything substantial enough to learn from or push back on. To use a quote that isn't my own, "That isn't even wrong."

But he ended up recognizing that he had been unable to give an explanation of the problem of Being. — David Mo

An explanation about the problem? I'm not sure what that means. If you mean that he later recognized that he was unable to "reawaken" and "question" the meaning of being, then I see no evidence of that whatsoever. Although Being and Time wasn't finished, he still acknowledges how important the path he took there is in this respect.

In my modest opinion neither he nor those who followed him were able to give an explanation of the fundamental concepts of his doctrine — David Mo

Unable to give an explanation? I've tried a number of times, and I'm happy to answer any questions. It's not so difficult to do once you've gotten into his funny language.

impossible to fully understand ten pages in a row of Being and Time. — David Mo

Difficult, but hardly impossible. In my view, worth the effort.

Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity. For the crowd believes that if it cannot see to the bottom of something it must be profound. It is so timid and dislikes going into the water. — F.N., The Gay Science

Great quote -- also leveled at Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, etc. etc. Not to mention Nietzsche himself -- among other accusations. No need to take this, or secondary sources, seriously. At least not until you've read it yourself, done so carefully, and thought it over. If you can then demonstrate where it's wrong, great -- if you can only give quotes and list names of Heidegger's critics, I'm not interested: I already have a library card, so I can read those people myself. I'm only interested in discussing this with people who have read him -- and thus can substantiate their criticism with evidence (perhaps supplanting this with other sources). I haven't seen this demonstrated yet.

... Ok.

Unable to give an explanation? I've tried a number of times, and I'm happy to answer any questions. It's not so difficult to do once you've gotten into his funny language. — Xtrix

Heidegger disqualifies his rivals and the entire universal philosophy for not having understood what the Being is. He does so systematically. I have been searching uselessly in Being and Time for an answer to that question. I consulted several qualified commentators (not believers) of his work who told me that, precisely, Heidegger never made something similar to a definition of the Being and even recognized that the Being is an indefinable concept. If you have an answer to what the Being is and you can base it on some text of Heidegger, I would be grateful if you could tell me. It will dispel the terrible suspicion that haunts me: that Heidegger did not know what he was talking about.

NOTE: A text, please, not a simple quote.

Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity. For the crowd believes that if it cannot see to the bottom of something it must be profound. It is so timid and dislikes going into the water. — F.N., The Gay Science

Sure, but the problem is that Nietzsche is perfectly understood (sometimes more than his fans would like) and Heidegger is not. What's more, Heidegger uses a few resources to provoke darkness, not lightness, which could be shared by any esoteric sect guru. For example, a specific jargon that is never clearly defined and that provokes endless discussions among his followers about what the master said. You know, "that seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand, lest they should be converted and their sins forgiven!" (Mark 4:12).

"The clarity. The clarity of the explainable, of the indubitable, of what results from avoiding contradiction, is not in its essence any clarity, because it can only shine where darkness is and where it forces as a foundation of thinking, that is, where darkness does not disappear with clarity, but unfolds". — Martin Heidegger, Cuadernos Negros, Editorial Trotta, 2017

To think about what the hell kind of clarity is that which " unfolds" the darkness. Very poetic and very unphilosophical, I'd say.

What he'd done -- meaning joining the Nazi party or his earlier work? Because neither is true. He infamously never apologized for being part of the Nazi party, although he once referred to it (in a letter I believe) as a "blunder." — Xtrix

Of course you must know the truth of these issues.

He became an official member of the Nazi party in April, 1933.

He is quoted as saying it was “The greatest stupidity of his life”.

In some ways I can see that being the grounds for people rejecting him and his work; not because he worked with the Nazis but that it blew back on the grounds for his thinking and writing.
— Brett

In what way? I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. — Xtrix

Because he was so tuned into ideas of “authenticity” and “fallenness”. Why, how, did he think the Nazi part was a good idea?

He is quoted as saying it was “The greatest stupidity of his life”. — Brett

But he never said clearly what that stupidity consisted of. He never disavowed the assumptions of his philosophy that led him to that "stupidity". He never denied the political basis that led him to glorify Hitler and his party. He always abhorred the Jews, communism and democracy.
So I don't think that elusive ways of shake the burden off are to be taken into account.

"Heidegger never made something similar to a definition of the Being and even recognized that the Being is an indefinable concept."

I don't have the text in front of me, but thought I'd offer that in the beginning of BT, he gives at least one tentative definition of Being as "that which determines beings in their being," he suggests, as already noted, we already have a preontological understanding of being - ("what is being?" for example, presupposes a direction/horizon for the question and a sense of being in the "is" of the question we are asking), and from the start he repeatedly insists Being should not be thought of as 'a being,' and that Being can not be understood as 'objective presence' which is how philosophy/metaphysics has typically 'covered over/concealed' this character of Being.

I think a good way to think about this can be found in the beginning of Hegel's Phenomenology:
As soon as consciousness has a "this" or "now" or "here" for itself, the immediacy which it thought it had has already passed - what remains is the concept that has preserved/superseded and subsequently mediates.

Or in Heraclitus albeit with a different 'attunement:'
"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man."