Both the History of the Concept of Time (pre-B&T) and Basic Problems of Phenomenology (post-B&T) are excellent companions to Being and Time.

Heidegger is arguably the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.

people misunderstand Heidegger and the concept of care. it has little to do with the colloquial English understanding of the word. Instead and for Heidegger, care is the term he gives toward what is more of an explanatory spectrum for our behavior. The absence of care is just as likely to explain our behavior as the presence of care. In addition, there is no positive moral dimension to the concept. A good Nazi could care just as much about being a good Nazi as a good Christian could care about being a good Christian.

the notion that all is contingent and the existence of Heidegger was unnecessary is inconsistent with the notion that someone else would have written Being and Time. You are essentially saying everything is contingent except Being and Time.

the presence of being-in-the-world. you are being-in-the-world and to be present is to be in the world. if you were not in the world, you would not be present.

the notion that all is contingent and the existence of Heidegger was unnecessary is inconsistent with the notion that someone else would have written Being and Time. You are essentially saying everything is contingent except Being and Time. — Arne

If anyone is being inconsistent then it's probably you.

A contingent thing maybe created by a contingent being.

but you said someone else "would" have written Being and Time. That would make Being and Time anecessary thing. All cannot be contingent if anything is necessary. Just saying.

It is what is; if it were not, then it wouldn't be. Paraphase notwithstanding, you (or Heidi) are not intelligibly saying anything, Arne.

but you said someone else "would" have written Being and Time. That would make Being and Time anecessary thing. All cannot be contingent if anything is necessary. Just saying — Arne

the notion that all is contingent and the existence of Heidegger was unnecessary is inconsistent with the notion that someone else would have written Being and Time. You are essentially saying everything is contingent except Being and Time. — Arne

Well, I meant to point out that the existence of Martin Heidegger is not necessary. Anything else wasn't implied in my statement. I probably should've said that if Being and Time were written at all it didn't have to be Heidegger. :grin:

OK

Sorry to have bothered you.

Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus - Heidegger encapsulated. Yes, modern, materialistic experience can be pretty soul destroying and shallow, often is. Not as soul destroying and shallow though as some inexplicable hankering after some effing romantic "Blut und Boden". The solution makes the problem seem like a paradise.

If Heidegger is doing anything he's pointing out that there has been something overlooked
— Xtrix

It is evident that we speak different languages. According to Heidegger there is an essential question: What is being? He dedicated several books and many lectures to it. He considered that Western philosophy had overlooked, deformed, degenerated, etc. this question since the time of the Greeks. If overlooking, deforming and degenerating a main subject is not to be wrong, what does it mean to be wrong for you? I'm afraid you speak a language that I don't know. And it's not English. — David Mo

Because it'd be like saying that if one states "the glass is half empty," it's "wrong." It's not wrong -- it's just as true as the opposite. There are various ways of interpreting things. Our way, in the West, is to interpret being in terms of time. This is the "metaphysics of presence." It's gone through various adaptations for 2,500 years. That's the thesis.

Again, if you want to say that this all amounts to Western thinking since 500 B.C being "wrong," you're welcome to. But it's not in Heidegger. Forgetting, overlooking, concealing, and taking for granted have very different connotations -- in English.

Well I'm not sure what you mean by the first sentence, but I'm not advocating for irrationalism or mysticism if that's what you're hinting at.
— Xtrix

Irrationalism or extreme relativism, which is the same thing. You refuse to defend your point because "there are many theories", "I don't know what Being is", etc. — David Mo

Defend what point?

:clap: Welcome to TPF!

But you've given no indication here that you've read one word of Heidegger. If you're in the "ignore the man because he was a Nazi" group -- that's fine. Then why come here at all?

Oh, I have. Actually in my distant youth I engaged in long passionate debates about him and his obscure metaphysics. A long story. And he wasn't much of a Nazi, though unrepentant for whatever he was. But that Latin quote is apt nevertheless. Anyway, I think you are right, I have had my fill of him.

Defend what point? — Xtrix

There's an example up there. "It's either half empty or half full." Perfect hermeneutical relativism.To err in the wrong direction by degenerating the answers to the point of needing a "new beginning" is to be half right.


I like to call bread, bread and wine, wine. It is a question of taste, you would say: bread can be wine, depending on how you want.

Cheers! I didn't find any thread to introduce myself, so I just plunged in :)

Defend what point?
— Xtrix

There's an example up there. "It's either half empty or half full." Perfect hermeneutical relativism.To err in the wrong direction by degenerating the answers to the point of needing a "new beginning" is to be half right. — David Mo

"Hermeneutical relativism" is a redundancy. We're talking about interpretation. Interpretation presupposes a point of view, of course. So a kind of "relativism" is already implied in the word -- it's relative to a perspective. It doesn't mean that truth is relative. I gave the simple example of the glass simply to demonstrate that just because an interpretation, or description, doesn't account for all the data doesn't make it "wrong."

Again, was Newton "wrong"?

But this isn't very interesting -- if you want to use "right" and "wrong" in describing the history of philosophy, I won't object any further. As I said, it's a bit of a nit-pick. But it's of tertiary importance.

Again, was Newton "wrong"? — Xtrix

Newton was (and is) right within the scope of his theory. Newton was right against his Cartesian rivals. The Cartesians were wrong.

Nevertheless, Heidegger poses a question with a universal scope: Being. According to Heidegger, Western metaphysics perverted the correct questioning of the Greeks. Therefore, the Greeks were right and western metaphysics was wrong. So much so that philosophy needs to start again, which does not happen until Heidegger arrives. Of course. (Without the Holy Spirit, I suppose). He accepts some partial successes in some exceptional philosophers, but not on the fundamental question: Being.

Hermeneutics, with Heidegger at the head, claims something confuse or contradictory: truth doesn't exist ("Truth is untruth", in Heidegger's words). They (you) don't say that absolute truth doesn't exist. This would be reasonable with some additional clarifications --I have done some above. They (you) claim an absolute truth against the truth. An absurdity.

If what you (or they) mean is that all truth fits within a scope, that is not denied by anyone outside the field of rationalist metaphysics. It is a rather trivial truth. But it does not prevent us from saying that, according to Heidegger's own words, the Greeks were right in the face of scholastic medieval metaphysics or Cartesian rationalism, for example.

Of course, like every prophet, Heidegger changed his theory later because he wanted to and reserved the truth for poetry. About the inconsistencies of this "second birth" of Western thought we can talk if you want.

Again, was Newton "wrong"?
— Xtrix
Newton was (and is) right within the scope of his theory. — David Mo

Exactly. Philosophers of the last 2,500 are right within the scope of "presencing."

Then you go on to make a lot of assertions...

Nevertheless, Heidegger poses a question with a universal scope: Being. According to Heidegger, Western metaphysics perverted the correct questioning of the Greeks. Therefore, the Greeks were right and western metaphysics was wrong. — David Mo

No. The question has been forgotten, it's true. But Heidegger doesn't think of it as "perverted" or "wrong." He just doesn't. Your reading is just incorrect, I'm afraid. He will go on about how the interpretations have varied and how the "question of the meaning of being" has been concealed/forgotten or simply taken for granted.

So much so that philosophy needs to start again, which does not happen until Heidegger arrives. Of course. — David Mo

You keep insisting on painting a picture of Heidegger as having some kind of God-complex. I really don't see how this is justified from any reading of him. But yes, given the state of the world and the history (as he understands it) of Western thought, we should return to the questioning of the meaning of Being. This much he claims.

Hermeneutics, with Heidegger at the head, claims something confuse or contradictory: truth doesn't exist ("Truth is untruth", in Heidegger's words). They (you) don't say that absolute truth doesn't exist. This would be reasonable with some additional clarifications --I have done some above. They (you) claim an absolute truth against the truth. An absurdity. — David Mo

I claim none of those things.

The "truth is untruth" quote is, of course, a deliberately cheap thing to do. Of course it looks ridiculous without further explanation. I'm not interested in playing games like that, though. If you want to know what he means by that, I'd be happy to explain it -- or read it yourself, if you're interested.

If what you (or they) mean is that all truth fits within a scope, that is not denied by anyone outside the field of rationalist metaphysics. It is a rather trivial truth. But it does not prevent us from saying that, according to Heidegger's own words, the Greeks were right in the face of scholastic medieval metaphysics or Cartesian rationalism, for example. — David Mo

"Right" about what?

Of course, like every prophet, — David Mo

...

Heidegger changed his theory later because he wanted to and reserved the truth for poetry. — David Mo

What "truth"? In Heidegger, it means something very different.

Sorry to say, but this is once again sounding like something from a secondary source. The Cliffs Notes version of later Heidegger thought isn't of much interest to me.

Sorry to say, but this is once again sounding like something from a secondary source. — Xtrix

I document what I say with primary and secondary sources. You seem to ignore both. For example:

But Heidegger doesn't think of it as "perverted" or "wrong." — Xtrix

What kind of question is this? Heidegger repeatedly accuses Western philosophy with negative concepts that imply falsity in many ways, both in Being and Time and in the Introduction to Metaphysics. And in all cases, in comparison with Greek philosophy In the first section of Being and Time (#1) four basic errors of Western philosophy are pointed out. A few later (p. 22/43-4) western philosophy is qualified as: "deteriorated," "dogmatic," and " concealment".

The term "misinterpretation" applied to Western philosophy appears from the first pages (7/10) and throughout the work. The same as "fall away from the truth" (p. 111/154). I particularly recommend page 11/14 where, explaining the perversions brought about by the Latin translation of the Greeks, he describes it as "deformation and decline". The following paragraph is illustrative:

But now we leap over this whole process of deformation and
decline, and we seek to win back intact the naming force of lan-
guage and words; for words and language are not just shells into
which things are packed for spoken and written intercourse. In the
word, in language, things first come to be and are. For this reason,
too, the misuse of language in mere idle talk, in slogans and phrases,
destroys our genuine relation to things. (11/15)

I do not think that I need to underline Heidegger's words that make direct reference to the concept of truth, both in the common sense and in the sense that Heidegger gives them. And something must be said about that because the question that follows is not understood.

What "truth"? In Heidegger, it means something very different. — Xtrix

Heidegger understands truth as aletheia. He describes it with various words that refer to a revelation or unveiling of the concealed. (Very poetic). Cf. Being and Time (223/265). That's what I'm talking about. I don't know what other sense you're talking about.

Exactly. Philosophers of the last 2,500 are right within the scope of "presencing." — Xtrix

I don't know what scope that is. What do you mean by "presence"?

Heidegger is explicitly referring to the realm of that mysterious stuff called Being. At least it can be said that this Being is universal. He says so. He does not mention a restricted scope, as is the case of Newtonian physics. So Western metaphysics cannot have the excuse of applying to a special field. It is the realm of Being and everything that Heidegger says about it is applied to it without restrictions.

Being is a cipher. What does being mean in a syllogism? Is it a quantifier, or a qualifier? Analytic philosophy treats it is a quantifier. But so does Heidegger. The difference is that logicians treat being as an enumeration, Heidegger treats it as the enumerator. That is what he means by “forgetfulness of being”, we have forgotten the enumerator, in all our enumerations. Both have forgotten the qualifier. As such, being is the attenuation of the worth of time, not the moment of it. Heidegger's time is really just a warmed-over epoch (his teacher's notion), the valorizing of duration over moment, purdurance over worth, presence over the worth of the departed. Presence is nothing of moment. That is why he sides with Parmenides over Socrates in the dialog by that name.

By the way, his description of the hammer, the use of the hammer, and the blacksmith's application of the hammer, smacks of a mind that has never been inside a real smithy, but, rather, that got this view from watching Wagner's Siegfried. In a real smithy, the blacksmith does not impose shape upon the metal, just look around at how many hammer are there of all shapes and weights! No, in a real smithy, the metal teaches the smith what it can and can't do. The matter is the matter, not the mind. It is a form of Calvinism that supposes that divinity channels its design upon a corrupt world through the mind of the believer. Just the reverse is truth. Divinity is the conceit that matter doesn't matter. Truth is what belies this.

Being is a cipher. — Gary M Washburn

A figure is not the destiny of history, as the second Heidegger says. Apart from God or the Absolute Spirit, which he explicitly rejects, I don't know what it can be. He didn't know either. In my opinion. What you can't talk about, you'd better shut up or you'll get into pseudo-problems. In my opinion.

What you can't talk about, you'd better shut up or you'll get into pseudo-problems. In my opinion. — David Mo

Apparently a more informed - better read - "opinion" than that of most Heideggerians (on this thread).

Most of what we talk about is what we can't talk about. The punctuation above seems confused to me, but whatever the hell Heidegger thought he was getting at, other than pandering to those who could save his bacon (read his biographies and you'll see what I mean), it was that there is something personal to "Being". He stated, and later denied he stated, a lot of things. Most famously, to 'be is to exist'. right there in black and white at the start of B&T. Wittgenstein, by the way, is wrong. Whereof we cannot speak is what gets us talking in the first place. Everything that ensues is in error, and yet the terms of recognizing how little we know depend upon our daring to be wrong.

:smirk: :up:

He stated, and later denied he stated, a lot of things. Most famously, to 'be is to exist'. right there in black and white at the start of B&T. — Gary M Washburn

Is this to say that he said to 'be is to exist' and then later said 'be is not to exist' or later said 'I never said that to be is to exist?'

In either case, could you point me in the direction of where either or both were said/where I can find these? And/or other referenced denials?

Everything that ensues is in error, and yet the terms of recognizing how little we know depend upon our daring to be wrong. — Gary M Washburn

Audacity is an essential characteristic of knowledge. No Galileo, Newton, Einstein or Bohr would have been possible without it. But audacity should not be confused with irresponsibility. True cognitive audacity exposes its idea to a verdict where it can be either false or true. Audacity is not required when it is said to be true because I want it and let whoever wants me follow me. This is the audacity of a prophet... and Heidegger's. Very little audacity when nothing is at stake.

David,
What is at stake is Heidegger's tenuous claim upon his own ego trip.

Kevin.
At the very beginning of B&T, Sartre famously quotes him in the intro to his Being and Nothingness. I don't remember where he denied it, but it was commonly discussed among students of his. I clearly remember the matter coming up in class, over fifty years ago. The response from the instructor was "he made a mistake". Yeah, and a lot more of them.

We do not fear being dead. We do not fear being nothing. The apprehension the thought of dying can cause in us is to distract us from the terrible weight of the possibility of being real. We will do anything to avoid the thought, and "anticipatory resoluteness" is just the dramatic conceit that we can do this "authentically". Being real is just what we most dread.

Writing is the supreme conceit in that dread. It is, quite deliberately, the murder of language, and poetry is its embalming fluid. "Idle talk" is far more genuinely what language really is.