Yes, being is a happening.
— Joshs
I don't agree with this. — Xtrix
It is very much like nothing. We interpret this "nothing," but that's all we can say about it. — Xtrix
Husserl seems to be saying that there is a primordial act of consciousness wherein something is first seen as something. Would you say this is still working within a metaphysics of presence, whereas Heidegger would say that the seeing as is derived from the pre-conscious pragmatic awareness of the ready-to-handedness of things? — Janus
I am suggesting that an examination of the language of being looks more productive than musings about time. — Banno
Meaning is not an artifact or "after-fact" of language; meaning is also pre-linguistic and is what makes language possible in the first place. — Janus
Harry Potter is a thing. Harry Potter is a being. — Xtrix
But does Harry Potter "exist" -- if by "exist" we mean is a being? Yeah, of course. So do unicorns and Santa Claus. — Xtrix
Seeming is what we do to things, isn' it? — Banno
It's not a hammer until one uses it to hit a nail. Use is pivotal. — Banno
Is an affordance imposed or discovered? — Srap Tasmaner
I’d have to think about how Wittgenstein would distinguish place from time , but my sense is it would be secondary and derivative from context, which is temporal. — Joshs
I'd indeed say the "interpretation" or recognition as a tree comes after the "that thing there". It happens all the time that one can not exactly identify what he is seeing. It's an undetermined "Dasein"(being-there) which becomes "Etwas"(a determined something) - lending from Hegel.But on what do I impose it? Is there not a primary phenomenon there of a fallen tree? ...
Will you say that I have imposed ‘tree’ on a selection of my visual field? — Srap Tasmaner
But in this sense it is not about use, it is about what gains identity and so just "is" without spending any further thought. It is purely phenomenological. With further determinations we get into socially mediated concepts. I do not know many kinds of trees, so which "level of abstraction" would be low enough? And which woods are suitable for telephone poles? That would require some inquiry. And is that tree even a tree or is there some biological distinction, for example, is it a small tree or a giant mushroom? While thinking about those questions and considering what remains the same is "the thing there". In fact this seems to be the quickest, most immediate notion that one can possibly have. Maybe the "thing" is exaggerated and in fact it is just a "there"We can give no meaning to ‘that thing’ and have no use for it, so it’s unlikely to be our first choice if we can guess ‘tree’ instead and change it ‘telephone pole’ later if we have to. — Srap Tasmaner
Meaning is not an artifact or "after-fact" of language; meaning is also pre-linguistic and is what makes language possible in the first place. — Janus
Interpreting is pretty much making us of.
— Banno
Did you mean "making use of"? — Janus
Fixed. — Banno
But in this sense it is not about use, it is about what gains identity and so just "is" without spending any further thought. It is purely phenomenological. With further determinations we get into socially mediated concepts. — Heiko
I think it does. You do not need to know what is flying towards you to react. You do not need to know if it is a telephone-pole or a streetlight that you nearly walked into.Does it make sense for me to be oriented toward something as something that ‘just is’? — Srap Tasmaner
↪ucarr
An existing thing, whether material or conceptual, is a road map to somewhere else.
— ucarr
How about, a thing is a dimensional construction which we create in order to organize and anticipate future events? — Joshs
I don't see being as separate from becoming; the only difference I could imagine would be to see it as becoming abstractly considered by putting the idea or sense of change aside. Do you understand being as changeless? — Janus
notice that the account of being given in the tradition of Frege, Russell, Quine and so on does not depend on time. — Banno
I’m getting this from Heidegger. He uses lots of similies for Being. Happening, occurrence, the in-between , the ontological difference, the ‘as’ structure are some of them. — Joshs
As you know , Heidegger has lots to say about the nothing, authentic angst , the uncanny, absence. — Joshs
On the other hand, coming back to the use-character, Heidegger points out that such stuff really "isn't" in some sense. I guess this has to do with the intention the things were created with. Again, going back to Hegel it is totally unclear what was meant with "Dasein", which cannot be said of a hammer or some other "human" invention.My impression, though, is that Heidegger thinks logical relations are themselves in need of grounding, rather than grounding what we might have to say about the being of things. I suppose that passes over your point about identity, but here identity seems to be a sort of raw demonstrative ‘that’. — Srap Tasmaner
The world as always already interpreted should not be conflated with the world as already named in my view. Meaning is not an artifact or "after-fact" of language; meaning is also pre-linguistic and is what makes language possible in the first place. — Janus
But I’m iffy on whether abstractions are things — Srap Tasmaner
But you have to say a lot more than, for instance, “Santa Claus exists — as an idea,” or something like that. An idea of what? Not of a person. — Srap Tasmaner
What else would they be? Are they nothing? If they’re not nothing, then they’re “in” being along with everything else— clouds, feelings, sound, force, Bach’s fugues and strawberry candles. — Xtrix
There is nothing on earth that answers to “Erin Hunter”. She doesn’t exist. — Srap Tasmaner
A triangle can be little, large, flat or pointy. To me, it is not clear at all which same- or alike-ness would make up for the essential properties of an arbitrary determination.And maybe abstraction is always like this — we’ll say ‘ignoring’ all except the features you’ve chosen, but maybe ‘ignoring’ means ‘pretending not to notice’. — Srap Tasmaner
He really doesn't. — 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.