So I've been reading this great work as a work of love about love. — Gregory
I think when he says "taking care of the world" he means love, plain and simple — Gregory
our most fundamental ability psychologically, ontologically, and spiritually is love. — Gregory
So is care that important? Not really, and it can often be mistaken as being emotional somehow because of the connotations of the word, when it’s more akin with directed activity or more related to awareness/attentional behavior. — Xtrix
If Heidegger believed that love was ontic and anxiety was ontological, than I think he has it backwards, although I don't think he says this. Intentionality always has to be activated by love of something in some sense. You can't just have will power and anxiety. You would be crippled instantly. — Gregory
The phenomenon of care in its totality is essentially something that cannot be tom asunder; so any attempts to trace it back to special acts or drives like willing and wishing or urge and addiction, or to construct it out of these, will be unsuccessful. " p.193-194 — waarala
the very distinction between “self” and “world” is very much antithetical to Heidegger. — Xtrix
I think it’s best not to dwell on care. I see care as a bridge between the analysis of being-in-the-world and temporality. We “care” about the world by default— we can’t help it. Just as we can’t help being (or having) a world. What’s more important is the structure of time that emerges from the analysis. After all, it’s not “Being and Care”, it’s being and time. — Xtrix
Being must be defined as "care".
The phenomenon of care in its totality is essentially something that cannot be tom asunder; so any attempts to trace it back to special acts or drives like willing and wishing or urge and addiction, or to construct it out of these, will be unsuccessful. — waarala
how has Heidegger radicalized the concept of time so that it can be understood as heedful circumspective relevance? — Joshs
I read it more as: Man, who understands being, is time. — Xtrix
You’re absolutely correct. Heidegger does not view Dasein from the vantage of a subject-object binary. If one instead speaks of self and world, then Dasein belongs to both poles. — Joshs
Yes, but how has Heidegger radicalized the concept of time so that it can be understood as heedful circumspective relevance? Why can’t we help caring about the world? Temporality is at the heart of Husserl’s model also but Care doesn’t apply to his approach. Why not? Because the structure of temporality for Heidegger describes an intimacy between past present and future missing from Husserl. Care is this intimate pragmatic relevance, this for-the-sake-of which orients all experience with respect to the immediate past. — Joshs
But any human willing can be torn asunder. The only thing that can't be torn asunder is matter which can't be created or destroyed. So care would be the substance of the world which holds us in existence and allows us to care, love, and will. That's where I'm at at this point in the discussion. — Gregory
I read it more as: Man, who understands being, is time.
— Xtrix
I like where this is going. Is man time or being? — Gregory
What type of being does Man understand? The material world? I haven't seen where Heidegger explicitly denies this, although he focuses on hammering for example instead of hammers. — Gregory
What type of being does Man understand? The material world? — Gregory
Also, do you believe Heidegger is saying more than Aristotle and Augustine in putting time in the soul of Dasein? — Gregory
To my eyes Heidegger's ontic is dualistic (me and a hammer) but his ontology is not so — Gregory
If you have more on how Dasein understands itself as not separate from matter but not lost in the ocean of matter i'd be interested. — Gregory
just as a hammer can be thought of as a wooden stick with a metal piece on the end of it, weighing a certain amount and of a certain dimension or having other properties, but isn't thought of such when we're absorbed in the activity of hammering, likewise the world isn't simply "material." — Xtrix
To my eyes Heidegger's ontic is dualistic (me and a hammer) but his ontology is not so, — Gregory
It's about community, work for the community, and love of family and community. — Gregory
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.