Hey, what language do you speak? I'm just saying that because of the accent. I hadn't thought of comparing Hegel to a potato chip, but sometimes Heidegger seems more like a sweet potato promoted to the generalate. I hope that doesn't lead to a third world war. With the civil war I have enough.Projection was to always put the truth in the future; it's like having a friesby that you keep tossing away once it returns to you. — Gregory
Being is that which shows itself in the pure perception
— Xtrix
What is pure perception? An intellectual vision, since it is pure. But there is nothing in Parmenides that suggests contemplation in the sense of intuitive grasping (I use intuition in the Kantian sense), but reasoning. Of course, if we equate every thought with "pure perception" everything is "vision". But it is an unjustifiable assimilation that only serves to create confusion of language. — David Mo
"Being is that which shows itself in the pure perception which belongs to beholding, and only by such seeing does Being get discovered. — Xtrix
George Steiner is my main guide to (not) understanding Heidegger. In his own words, the subject of time "is watertight even by Heideggerian standards". Indeed, Heidegger creates around the concept of temporality a tangle of metaphors, neologisms and undefined concepts that make what he says unintelligible. A labyrinth only suitable for lovers of the cabala and masochists. :yum: — David Mo
What I am clear about is that Heidegger distinguishes between authentic and inauthentic temporality. — David Mo
Not easy, but I wouldn't say unintelligible. That "projection" and "anticipation" are the basis for ordinary concepts about the "future" as a "not-yet-now" isn't all that hard to understand: — Xtrix
Maybe you could explain it to me then, because this is something I'm certainly not clear on. I'm not even sure if "authentic temporality" really makes sense. — Xtrix
His letting-itself-come-towards-itself in that distinctive possibility which it puts up with, is the primordial phenomenon of the future as coming towards. If either authentic or inauthentic Being-towards-death belongs to Dasein's Being, then such Being-towards-death is possible only as something futural [[i]als zukünftiges[/i]], in the sense which we have now indicated, and which we have still to define more closely. (B&T: 326/372-3)
The character of "having been" arises from the future, and in such a way that the future which "has been" (or better, which "is in the process of having been") releases from itself the Present. This phenomenon has the unity of a future which makes present in the process of having been; we designate it as "temporality" (B&T: 326/374)
Ley us see:
His letting-itself-come-towards-itself in that distinctive possibility which it puts up with, is the primordial phenomenon of the future as coming towards. If either authentic or inauthentic Being-towards-death belongs to Dasein's Being, then such Being-towards-death is possible only as something futural [[i]als zukünftiges[/i]], in the sense which we have now indicated, and which we have still to define more closely. (B&T: 326/372-3)
Two things are clear here: There is an authentic and an inauthentic temporality and both are based on "futural”. But what temporality means is gibberish. — David Mo
The character of "having been" arises from the future, and in such a way that the future which "has been" (or better, which "is in the process of having been") releases from itself the Present. This phenomenon has the unity of a future which makes present in the process of having been; we designate it as "temporality" (B&T: 326/374)
This is a mess because Heidegger identifies past, present and future in a "unity". — David Mo
I suggest that you read the context of the texts I have provided. In any case, in the two texts I have provided, temporality is impied by means of future. In the first and second texts Heidegger is talking about temporality.Notice he doesn't mention temporality here. — Xtrix
Because you don't pay attention to what I say and you respond to something else that comes to mind. The problem is not that they form a unity (at least not the one I was aiming at) but that in that unity the future is defined in terms of having been (past).I don't see it as a mess really. — Xtrix
This is exactly what you do from here. Nothing you say refers to my objection. You recite what you more or less know and forget the terms of our debate.In any case, again and again it's always helpful to keep in mind the separation of "ready-to-hand" and "present-at-hand" modes of being, — Xtrix
This is exactly what you do from here. Nothing you say refers to my objection. You recite what you more or less know and forget the terms of our debate. — David Mo
Notice he doesn't mention temporality here.
— Xtrix
I suggest that you read the context of the texts I have provided. — David Mo
I don't see it as a mess really.
— Xtrix
Because you don't pay attention to what I say and you respond to something else that comes to mind. The problem is not that they form a unity (at least not the one I was aiming at) but that in that unity the future is defined in terms of having been (past). — David Mo
This is a mess because Heidegger identifies past, present and future in a "unity". To build that unity he equates the future with "having been", that is, what is normally understood as the past. And the present is "liberated" from itself we don't quite know how nor from what. In other words, the construction of that unity destroys the common meaning of the word "time", without proposing an intelligible alternative. — David Mo
Heidegger specifically spoke of relativity. Being Kantian, time does not have parts. SO would inauthentic time be Newton's and authentic be Kant's? I suppose. — Gregory
Heidegger says in B&T that death is a possibility FOR being. I guess this implies an afterlife where we experience time truly instead.of in an illusion. Any comments? — Gregory
No, because "inauthentic/authentic time" is meaningless. — Xtrix
No, because "inauthentic/authentic time" is meaningless.
— Xtrix
For Heidegger it's meaningingless? He says "the facticity of Being is essentially distinguished from the factuality of something objectively present. Existing Being does not encounter itself as something objectively present within the world." This might be a starting point to seeing a difference in time-structure. — Gregory
"The problem of possible wholeness of the being, who we ourselves actually are, exists justifiably IF care, as the fundamental constitution of Being, 'is connected' with DEATH as the most extreme possibility OF this Being."
So there is possibility of Being in death. Heidegger doesn't say we then go from Being to infinite nothingness. He doesn't speak of ETERNAL life at all. But Being does not leave us in death — Gregory
"..death is the ownmost nonrelational, certain, and, as such, indefinite and not to be bypssed possibility OF Being".
All these quotes are from B&T — Gregory
1) doesnt post modernism say that most language is inherently ambiguous? — Gregory
2) Heidegger wrote "Modern Science, Metaphysics, and Mathematics" during an age when everyone was talking about relativity. I'm sure it's covered in the book. — Gregory
3) what would a conversation between Heisenberg and Heidegger have been like?? Energy was being discovered as the principle of everything, and the conclusion seemed to be that energy could create its own forces out of nothing. So much for a need for supernatural intervention! Heidegger must have found this interesting — Gregory
That "ordinary conception of time" has been destroyed isn't a criticism. — Xtrix
Tell Heidegger.As far as I see, he never once mentions "authentic temporality." That doesn't make sense. — Xtrix
It arises from inauthentic temporality, which has a source of its own. The
conceptions of 'future', 'past' and 'Present' have first arisen in terms of
the inauthentic way of understanding time. (B&T: 326/374)
This way of Being-alongside is the Present-the "waiting-towards" ; this
ecstatical mode reveals itself if we adduce for comparison this very same
ecstasis, but in the mode of authentic temporality. To the anticipation
which goes with resoluteness, there belongs a Present in accordance with
which a resolution discloses the Situation. In resoluteness, the Present is
not only brought back from distraction with the objects of one's closest
concern, but it gets held in the future and in having been. That Present
which is held in authentic temporality and which thus is authentic itself, we
call the "moment of vision". (B&T: 338/387)
That "ordinary conception of time" has been destroyed isn't a criticism.
— Xtrix
He does not destroy anything. — David Mo
In other words, the construction of that unity destroys the common meaning of the word "time", — David Mo
He changes the common sense of a word without giving a valid reason. — David Mo
When he speaks of temporality he is speaking of something else that is not temporary. According to you what reason do you have to "destroy" the common concept of time? Any sensible person understands that the football match to be played tomorrow is not now and that the car I bought yesterday is not in the future. For him everything is part of the same amalgam. That is, a play on words that serves only to mislead.
I understand that mystics and Buddhists like this verbal entanglement. I do not. — David Mo
I found a dozen references to authentic or inauthentic temporality in 10''. Advantages of computer science. — David Mo
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.