What I have in mind specifically is his analysis of what he calls the statement in B&T. He refers to this as an extreme of interpretation and of the present to hand. He derives the ‘is’ from the ‘as’ structure, in which we take something as something. I consider the following analysis to inextricably link the ‘is’ to the ‘as’ , the ‘as’ to temporality, and temporality to being ( the ‘is’). — Joshs
2) A conscious (thinking) subject contemplating objects ignores absence -- it ignores the fact that most of the time we are acting unconsciously, and that thinking itself (as philosophical or scientific thinking) is but one mode of human activity. — Xtrix
I imagine there might be endless possible readings of a given person in the context of sociological, historical and psychological influences. How do you determine you have an appropriate reading of these influences in constructing an explanatory system? — Tom Storm
They're social animals, like almost all animals are.It's interesting to watch her wander around the coop; she's never not had company. One wonders what, if any, sense of absence is there when she doesn't have to compete for the grain thrown on the floor, or when she finds herself alone on the perch at roost. — Banno
2. The absolute presence of the thinking subject and its object. Although the absent is still lurking in the form of the transcendent. — Janus
3. I'm reminded of the other thread re Collingwood and the idea of absolute presuppositions that we are unaware we are making at our peril. — Janus
The rise of science, technology and colonialism in the West (which was around the 10th century well behind China technologically) — Janus
The twin evils of scientism and capitalism, with their total disregard for nature, stand in the way of any new socialist order which would seem to be the only hope for civilization going forward. That our destinies are determined by a tiny cabal of individuals and giant corporations who would rather see the world burn than give up their power and privilege is quite an horrific scenario to contemplate. — Janus
Dasein is not a consciousness. — Joshs
Don’t forget Marxism, and its associated dialectical materialism. — Joshs
if we throw out the subject/object distinction, and read it more as "awareness" or "openness" or "perception" or "apprehension" (words he prefers), then of course that's happening. Dasein is an activity, a being-in-the-world, a caring entity pressing into the future. Difficult to describe because we have so little language for it. — Xtrix
@Janus That is close to the distinction that I am getting at. I think there has to be a distinction between the verbs 'to exist' and 'to be'. So 'existent' or 'phenomenon' don't have precisely the same meaning as 'being'. Furthermore, living beings embody the dynamic nature of being more so than minerals and inorganic substances, because their being is something that is dynamically enacted moment by moment. That is why I question whether it's meaningful to refer to any kind of thing as a being. — Wayfarer
Static entities do not get to choose what to do. This is the relevant sense of "becoming"....but nonetheless even apparently 'static' entities are be-ings. They are also, despite their apparent stasis, becomings. — Janus
...the structure of temporality. — Joshs
IOW, people ordinarily don't ask the question you do, they find it absurd.
That said, I, personally, wouldn't ask myself that question either, but would just focus on the interaction at hand, rather than seeking to get a definitive idea of who the other person is. — baker
I'd be interested in how such views are compatible with Heidegger's work on being (and no I am not trying to be a dick) I am always curious how complex theoretical positions translate into or are compatible with world-views such as these. — Tom Storm
being-in-itself is explicitly definable, while being-for-itself is a process of self-definition - or more clearly, we can set out explicitly what it is to be an igneous rock, but we can't set out explicitly what it is to be Wayfarer; and this is because what it is to be Wayfarer is in a state of flux as Wayfarer makes his way through the world. An igneous rock does not make itself in the way a person does. — Banno
2. The absolute presence of the thinking subject and its object. Although the absent is still lurking in the form of the transcendent. — Janus
Unpack what you mean in the second sentence for me a bit, if you please. — Xtrix
So we can reply to
...but nonetheless even apparently 'static' entities are be-ings. They are also, despite their apparent stasis, becomings. — Janus
Static entities do not get to choose what to do. This is the relevant sense of "becoming". — Banno
Awareness , apprehension and perception may be a bit too close to the passivity of subject-object oppositionality. I noticed that, surprisingly, he doesnt use the word ‘awareness’ a single time in Being and Time , openness is used only a handful of times, and he’s not too crazy about perception either. I think he loves terms like disclosure. thrownnes and projection because they get away from the idea of a subject over here staring at a pre-existing object over there. — Joshs
λεγειν itself -- or rather νοειν, that simple awareness of something present-at-hand in its sheer presence-at-hand, which Parmenides had already taken to guide him in his own interpretation of Being -- has the Temporal structure of a pure 'making-present' of something. Those entities which show themselves in this and for it, and which are understood as entities in the most authentic sense, thus get interpreted with regard to the Present; that is, they are conceived as presence (ουσια).
Yet the Greeks have managed to interpret Being in this way without any explicit knowledge of the clues which function here, without any acquaintance with the fundamental ontological function of time or even any understanding of it, and without any insight into the reason why this function is possible. On the contrary, they take time itself as one entity among other entities, and try to grasp it in the structure of its Being, though that way of understanding Being which they have taken as their horizon is one which is itself naively and inexplicitly oriented towards time.
it's no wonder it eventually devolves into scientism and capitalism. — Xtrix
For Heidegger we are never conscious to ourselves , because reflection is transformation. So absence for Heidegger makes its way into the heart of experiencing every moment, in that the self is never present to itself as consciousness, self-reflexivity and self-awareness. We are fundamentally absent to ourselves. — Joshs
Very well said. Our secular age, with its scientism and capitalism is ultimately based on "naturalism" and "materialism," or even "physicalism." Two other -isms branch off from these: hedonism and consumerism. That's a lot of -isms. But if we look around, this explains a large part of our world. It shows up in the "American Dream" of basically aspiring to be nothing more than a wage slave who can maybe one day own a house and a little land (property, assets -- "stuff"). It shows up in our addictions to technology, the most obvious being smart phones. — Xtrix
I think that for Heidegger we are absent to ourselves when we are completely identifying ourselves with the "things" or entities we are dealing with. That is, in "normal" everyday "falling" (Verfallenheit) we are basically absent to ourselves. But then we are in a danger to interpret ourselves as mere things or tools i.e. as something present-of-hand or ready-to-hand and not as an human historical existence. — waarala
I have no argument with that.
— Janus
Me, neither. What about you, Joshs? It's just that even if the distinction between the in-self and the for-itself is a remnant of Kantian dualism, it might still be of some use. — Banno
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.