If you don't mind being alone in the face of danger, go ahead. But Gary Cooper only wins in the movies.Kind of a weak appeal to authority. — Xtrix
Of course, you don't read what I write.He does not believe the latter is "wrong" -- but rather that an essential thing has been overlooked — Xtrix
Of course, you don't read what I write. Or you're manipulating what I say. That "completely" is an addition from you.Or maybe Heidegger thinks Plato and Aristotle and Descartes and Kant are all completely "wrong. — Xtrix
He doesn't say "get rid of," he says we must "free ourselves" from — Xtrix
I think I've explained this, but here we go.I don't think you're saying that necessarily...but think about it: if they're all "wrong" in their interpretation of being and beings and of time, then what value do they have? — Xtrix
If you want to say that Heidegger's words against metaphysical Western tradition (degenerated, deteriorate, concealing, dogmatic, etc.) are not negative I think we have different dictionaries. And so it is impossible any serious discussion.
— David Mo
Not different -- he just never applies it in the way you're saying. As I've gone over with you several times now, there's a distinction to be drawn between translations and the entirety of Western thought. He does not believe the latter is "wrong" -- but rather that an essential thing has been overlooked: that all of our various ways of interpreting being has been on the basis of the present -- and that perhaps it's time to go to the "things themselves" (the cry of phenomenology) by understanding and overthrowing this tradition. — Xtrix
Kind of a weak appeal to authority.
— Xtrix
If you don't mind being alone in the face of danger, go ahead. But Gary Cooper only wins in the movies. — David Mo
He doesn't say "get rid of," he says we must "free ourselves" from
— Xtrix
From Cambridge dictionary of English:
Synonym of free from/of sth. : removing and getting rid of things.
This is my dictionary, what is your dictionary? I'm afraid it's not an English dictionary. — David Mo
I don't think you're saying that necessarily...but think about it: if they're all "wrong" in their interpretation of being and beings and of time, then what value do they have?
— Xtrix
I think I've explained this, but here we go.
If they have any, it will not be as paths to the truth of Being, guides of the thinker. They will be partial and secondary successes. In the main they are wrong. That's not I who say this. Heidegger repeatedly says it, as anyone who's read only one of his books can be aware. — David Mo
There is nothing I equate "Being" with because that would be to predicate upon the form of predication. Neither can the form or idea of predication be intransitive. It is a passive verb, or, at most, a part of a middle voice, not an active agent in the real. "Being" is not a pronoun! By 'better', I simply mean more meaningful. or even more what meaning, and worth, is. The only agency in reality is a departure that has no "da" unless what remains is burdened with a responsibility that the worth of the departed be recognized. That departure is the only act of being, and that response is what love really is. There can be no anticipating it or finding it in time, because it is not being there at all. And what does "da" mean? For one thing, it really is neither here nor there, and if context determines for us what we think it means it can hardly be objective. The plain fact of the matter is the more we map our whereabouts the less present we are there. Proximally and for the most part, if I may, all systems of navigation are quite explicitly a means of passing through and leaving, not of being there at all. And if you mean to leave you are not really there. "Da" is intrinsically vague and ambiguous, and vagueness and ambiguity is what "Being" is. The capitalization does not give it agency. — Gary M Washburn
The term "Aletheia" came up at some point. Fact is, Lethe is the river all souls must drink from entering Hades, for forgetfulness. A-letheia, therefore, means, simply, the unforgotten or un-forgetfulness. — Gary M Washburn
Scholars are in general agreement that Heidegger's grasp of Greek is bogus. — Gary M Washburn
Sorry if I'm not getting through to you, but I am quite certain the fault is not wholly mine. — Gary M Washburn
"In the main they are wrong." You simply don't know what you're talking about. — Xtrix
I want to be clear that I consider Heidegger to be a great thinker and teacher, and that I've learned a great deal from his writings and interviews — Xtrix
Heidegger offers no interpretation of being — Xtrix
"In the main they are wrong." You simply don't know what you're talking about.
— Xtrix
I think this is exactly your case:
You're a good disciple of Heidegger: you've decided that words don't mean what they usually mean but what you want them to mean. That's why you don't care what the dictionaries and everyone who has studied Heidegger say. — David Mo
Of course, the criterion of authority is not an argument in itself, but there are times when it is useful. It's useful in the face of a question we don't know. When talking about nuclear physics, most human beings have no choice but to trust what the scientists say. When all the experts on Heidegger say one thing contrary to what you say you would do well to meditate a little on your position. Especially when you are not able to present a single text that supports your position and you say it because you want to. — David Mo
And your whole excuse is that "free from something" is a "technical" term whose meaning only you know. Don't make me laugh. Where did you get your knowledge? If you don't back up your interpretation with commentators' texts or Heidegger's, where does your interpretation come from? Is it a metaphysical intuition? — David Mo
I got tired of providing you with Heidegger's negative terms regarding the western metaphysical tradition, — David Mo
I think I must have put here a dozen examples taken from Heidegger's own books. I repeat some of them to refresh your memory, which seems to be somewhat weak.
Deteriorating, collapsing, falling down, inadequately formulated, forgotten, distortions, taken over dogmatically, concealments, baleful prejudice, failed to determine, falsified, misses its sense entirely, falsified from the bottom up, degeneration, blocked, forgotten, erroneous — David Mo
All of them constitute a "radical" criticism, that is to say, in its root, to the western metaphysics, which, according to Heidegger has undertaken a wrong way of which it is necessary to get rid of. Of course, according to your metaphysical intuition they do not mean "wrong". They're just for show. — David Mo
But you just respond like a litany (mantra, if you like) that they don't mean what they obviously say. But you cannot present a single text in your favour. — David Mo
So this debate is not a real debate. It is pure stubbornness on your part. — David Mo
Probably because you presented yourself as someone who knew Heidegger's work well and this is not true. If you have read one or two texts that you did not understand or did not want to understand. There's not much to present you as an authority on the subject. — David Mo
You started this thread by saying:
I want to be clear that I consider Heidegger to be a great thinker and teacher, and that I've learned a great deal from his writings and interviews
— Xtrix
You don't look like you've demonstrated that much knowledge of Heidegger to me. Actually, almost nothing. I think the two months I've been reviewing Heidegger has been more productive than your whole life as a Heideggerian. I've presented at least ten times more Heidegger's texts here than you have. A clear indication. — David Mo
Heidegger offers no interpretation of being
— Xtrix
If you mean he doesn't offer any coherent interpretation, fine. But that doesn't stop him from attributing to Being a number of powers that go beyond the natural. — David Mo
As he says in Being and Time, Being must be explained beyond the intuition, because the existing explanations have hidden the truth of Being. — David Mo
Xtrix,
Not off topic at all. Just not within the limits you arbitrarily set. — Gary M Washburn
As I've been very honest about: I know Heidegger better than you. It's not because I'm smarter, it's because I've spent more time reading him. — Xtrix
And I've quoted MULTIPLE texts that demonstrate exactly the opposite of what you're saying. — Xtrix
[Again, the above quotation is Heidegger, not me. — Xtrix
I even linked you a video from Heidegger's own mouth about how he "does not mean by that anything negative." — Xtrix
Let me try this way. If Western metaphysics is "wrong" -- then what's "right"? Parmenides and Heraclitus? What were their interpretations of being? — Xtrix
I don't think Heidegger said anywhere that the "interpretations" of Parmenides and Heraclitus were correct. I believe that what he says is that the correct approach to Being was made by Parmenides and Heraclitus. One can say that they were in the right direction or that they unraveled the root of the problem. "Interpretation" is not the right word, I think.What was wrong was the interpretation of its key expressions by the later tradition. You put the question of translation on the back burner. No, not at all. Language is the "house of being" for Heidegger (Letter on Humanism p. 253,.) Any concealing or downgraded translation of Heraclitus and Parmenides in terms of substantia meant the loss of the right way of understanding Being. And this is what Plato and Aristotle did first, and the Western metaphysical tradition after them. That's why they falsified the whole (bottom up) question of Being. And this is the context.You've taken other words, like "falsified from the bottom up" (pertaining to translations, — Xtrix
As for "attributing to being a number of powers that go beyond the natural," what are you referring to? There's no way Heidegger "attributes" anything to Being, because being HAS NO attributes. It has no properties. It has no traits. It is not even an "it." — Xtrix
Leaving aside the fact that here another subject is raised that is not Western metaphysics. the text you quote would work against your argument! Or is being dangerous not negative?So there you go -- I've highlighted a bunch of "negative" words for you. — Xtrix
"Being must be explained beyond intuition." Again, this really goes against everything Heidegger writes. — Xtrix
Thirdly, it is held that 'Being' is of all concepts the one that is self evident. Whenever one cognizes anything or makes an assertion, whenever one comports oneself towards entities, even towards oneself, some use is made of 'Being'; and this expression is held to be intelligible 'without further ado', just as everyone understands "The sky is blue', 'I am merry', and the like. But here we have an average kind of intelligibility, which merely demonstrates that this is unintelligible. It makes manifest that in any way of comporting oneself towards entities as entities-even in any Being towards entities as entities-there lies a priori an enigma.The very fact that we already live in an understanding of Being and that the meaning of Being is still veiled in darkness proves that it is necessary in principle to raise this question again. — Heidegger: B&T, p. 4/27
For example:As for "attributing to being a number of powers that go beyond the natural," what are you referring to? — Xtrix
Despite Heidegger’s own protestations against identifying Being with ‘the Supreme Being’ of metaphysical theology and against seeing it as in any way ‘personal’ like the theistic God, Löwith argued that it was virtually impossible not to compare Heidegger’s Being with the Judaeo-Christian God, periodically revealing Himself to mortals for purposes that are both inscrutable and, as yet, unfulfilled. Whereas in Being and Time, Being ‘is’ only as long as Dasein is, Dasein itself now exists only by the grace and favour of Being. — Pattison: The Late Heidegger, p. 195
The human being is rather "thrown" by being itself into the truth of being, so that ek-sisting in this fashion he might guard the truth of being, in order that beings might appear in the light of being as the beings they are. Human being do not decide whether and how beings appear, whether and how God and the gods or history and nature come forward into the clearing of being, come to presence and depart. The advent of beings lies in the destiny of being. — Heidegger: Letter on Humanism, Op. Cit. p. 252
Any concealing or downgraded translation of Heraclitus and Parmenides in terms of substantia meant the loss of the right way of understanding Being. — David Mo
As for "attributing to being a number of powers that go beyond the natural," what are you referring to? There's no way Heidegger "attributes" anything to Being, because being HAS NO attributes. It has no properties. It has no traits. It is not even an "it."
— Xtrix
That is why Heidegger says that it is destiny, the key to being saved, that it is revealed or hidden, that it dwells in the languge, that is the truth, etc., etc. Of course, that's not having properties. I suppose Heidegger calls it something else, proclaims it to be the "true" meaning and is so calm. Privileges of quackery jargon. — David Mo
So there you go -- I've highlighted a bunch of "negative" words for you.
— Xtrix
Leaving aside the fact that here another subject is raised that is not Western metaphysics. the text you quote would work against your argument! Or is being dangerous not negative? — David Mo
So there you go -- I've highlighted a bunch of "negative" words for you. If you truly believe, given what he's talking about here, that it relates to what you're claiming -- as I anticipate you will -- then you're completely off track. — Xtrix
Xtrix,
I think a lot of readers would say it was Heidegger who is from another planet. But, no, he was part of a tradition which he both parasited upon and abused. If you do not know the difference between induction and reduction you don't know enough philosophy to read any of it at all. Mind is far vaster place than you seem comfortable with. Whatever.
I gave you a statement: “Every utterance is unique.” What do you not understand in this? I must confess, I mean “unique” in the strict sense. If “Being” is as Heidegger claims, what is unique is either what “Being” is, or it is nothing at all. As Goethe claimed, you can't be hammer and anvil too. But if presence is a future emancipated from its past, then the unique is the emancipator that is the only presence. Presence, that is, because the future can only remembrance that unique act in contrariety to the stricture of its past in recognition of the value that emancipation is to it. It's a simple enough question, then, do you understand what uniqueness really is, and why it is conclusive proof Heidegger made a hash of everything he turned his mind to? — Gary M Washburn
"Being must be explained beyond intuition." Again, this really goes against everything Heidegger writes.
— Xtrix
Again, you don't know Heidegger well :
Thirdly, it is held that 'Being' is of all concepts the one that is self evident. Whenever one cognizes anything or makes an assertion, whenever one comports oneself towards entities, even towards oneself, some use is made of 'Being'; and this expression is held to be intelligible 'without further ado', just as everyone understands "The sky is blue', 'I am merry', and the like. But here we have an average kind of intelligibility, which merely demonstrates that this is unintelligible. It makes manifest that in any way of comporting oneself towards entities as entities-even in any Being towards entities as entities-there lies a priori an enigma.The very fact that we already live in an understanding of Being and that the meaning of Being is still veiled in darkness proves that it is necessary in principle to raise this question again.
— Heidegger: B&T, p. 4/27 — David Mo
As for "attributing to being a number of powers that go beyond the natural," what are you referring to?
— Xtrix
For example: — David Mo
The human being is rather "thrown" by being itself into the truth of being, so that ek-sisting in this fashion he might guard the truth of being, in order that beings might appear in the light of being as the beings they are. Human being do not decide whether and how beings appear, whether and how God and the gods or history and nature come forward into the clearing of being, come to presence and depart. The advent of beings lies in the destiny of being. — Heidegger: Letter on Humanism, Op. Cit. p. 252
Objects and substances (beings) have properties. Being has no properties. — Xtrix
The advent of beings lies in the destiny of being. — Heidegger: Letter on Humanism, Op. Cit. p. 252
Parmenides and Heraclitus had it "right" (though we're not sure what the "it" refers to), and those after them have it "wrong." Excellent analysis. But not once in Heidegger. — Xtrix
Well, you're laughing at Heidegger himself.Any concealing or downgraded translation of Heraclitus and Parmenides in terms of substantia meant the loss of the right way of understanding Being. — David Mo
The "right way." It's almost laughable to put it like this. — Xtrix
The primordial phenomenon of truth has been covered up by Dasein' s very understanding of Being-that understanding which is proximally the one that prevails, and which even today has not been surmounted explicitly and in principle. At the same time, however, we must not overlook the fact that while this way of understanding Being (the way which is closest to us) is one which the Greeks were the first to develop as a branch of knowledge and to master, the primordial understanding of truth was simultaneously alive among them, even if pre-ontologically, and it even held its own against the concealment implicit in their ontology-at least in Aristotle. — Heidegger: Being and Time, Oxford, 2001, p. 225/268
The advent of beings lies in the destiny of being.
— Heidegger: Letter on Humanism, Op. Cit. p. 252
A property is nothing more than an attribute, a quality, like the ability to do something. If you say that X is y or that X possesses y, y is the property of X. Although Heidegger denies that Being is an entity like other entities, he attributes certain properties to it. — David Mo
That advent of Being is the destiny that governs history. Notice that it is not beings that rule that destiny, but Being, which as such is placed as something different and above them. That is, supernatural. — David Mo
Therefore, despite Heidegger's statement that Being is not God, he speaks of it in such a way that one cannot conclude but that it is a kind of divinity. Perhaps not a personalized god, but an entity of supernatural powers. — David Mo
Heidegger does not usually use the word "wrong". — David Mo
accuse someone of being blind or corrupting the matter is to be wrong. — David Mo
Any concealing or downgraded translation of Heraclitus and Parmenides in terms of substantia meant the loss of the right way of understanding Being. — David Mo
The "right way." It's almost laughable to put it like this.
— Xtrix
Well, you're laughing at Heidegger himself. — David Mo
The primordial phenomenon of truth has been covered up by Dasein' s very understanding of Being-that understanding which is proximally the one that prevails, and which even today has not been surmounted explicitly and in principle. At the same time, however, we must not overlook the fact that while this way of understanding Being (the way which is closest to us) is one which the Greeks were the first to develop as a branch of knowledge and to master, the primordial understanding of truth was simultaneously alive among them, even if pre-ontologically, and it even held its own against the concealment implicit in their ontology-at least in Aristotle. — Heidegger: Being and Time, Oxford, 2001, p. 225/268
It is clear from this text that the Greeks had a knowledge of truth that was later lost. That knowledge of truth is something like a way or pathway that was blocked. That this path was the right one and to which we must return Heidegger says so until he gets tired. It's absurd to have to repeat it so many times. — David Mo
The Greeks did not have "knowledge of the truth" as if there's truth "out there" to be known. — Xtrix
Later it becomes a matter of logos as assertion, as correct propositions and correspondence of that which is present-at-hand. — Xtrix
At the same time, however, we must not overlook the fact that while this way of understanding Being (the way which is closest to us) is one which the Greeks were the first to develop as a branch of knowledge and to master, the primordial understanding of truth was simultaneously alive among them, even if pre-ontologically, and it even held its own against the concealment implicit in their ontology-at least in Aristotle. — Heidegger: Being and Time, Oxford, 2001, p. 225/268
The Greeks did not have "knowledge of the truth" as if there's truth "out there" to be known.
— Xtrix
Later it becomes a matter of logos as assertion, as correct propositions and correspondence of that which is present-at-hand.
— Xtrix
Let us see:
At the same time, however, we must not overlook the fact that while this way of understanding Being (the way which is closest to us) is one which the Greeks were the first to develop as a branch of knowledge and to master, the primordial understanding of truth was simultaneously alive among them, even if pre-ontologically, and it even held its own against the concealment implicit in their ontology-at least in Aristotle.
— Heidegger: Being and Time, Oxford, 2001, p. 225/268
(I have highlighted in bold letter some words that may help you understand what you seem unable to understand). — David Mo
For Heidegger (except in his last phase of his life, which is not that of the text we are commenting) truth is revelation (aletheia). And the opposite of truth is concealment. The primordial truth is the truth of Being. — David Mo
That “primordial” means Heidegger's idea that Being can only be understood through what is everyday and "close" to us. That is not a subjective truth. It is the knowledge of something that is there. As the text clearly states, the early Greeks had an understanding of that truth in contrast to those who began to hide their ontology. Aristotle is mentioned in the text, although elsewhere Heidegger situates Plato as the first to begin the concealment. In this sense, the Aristotelian metaphysics and its consequences in all the western metaphysics are blind to the truth of Being. — David Mo
Basically, all ontology, no matter how rich and firmly compacted a system of categories it has at its disposal, remains blind and perverted from its ownmost aim, if it has not first adequately clarified the meaning of Being, and conceived this clarification as its fundamental task. (Being and Time p. 11/31; italics by Heidegger)
And that's why I asked you what it means to be blind to one thing. How can a philosophy that's blind to the most fundamental be "correct"? What the hell do you think it means to be blind? — David Mo
I wish, instead of beating around the bush, you'd answer this. And if you bring up your famous contexts, to explain what context might be there that makes being blind “correct”. — David Mo
For a person who has spent many years studying Heidegger, you make primary mistakes. According Heidegger, present-at-hand is a deficient or secondary mode of knowledge. To put it as an example of “correct” knowledge is a macroscopic error on your part. — David Mo
Xtrix,
Unsurprisingly, you did not respond to my question. — Gary M Washburn
Uniqueness cannot exist in a Heideggerian world. — Gary M Washburn
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.