Food for thought.

Why don't we compile an anthology consisting of how various philosophies/philosophers are/can be misunderstood.

It's my contention that ways things go wrong (here gross/pardonable misunderstanding) can be as informative and illuminating as ways they go right (here correctly understood).

Dasein — Arne

What's that?

Dasein is the label Heidegger appropriates and attaches to that being whose mode of being is existence.

interesting. In some respects, Heidegger made a living by maintaining that all of Western Philosophy went off the rails by misinterpreting the early Greek philosophers and that he (and he alone?) understood them correctly and could therefore put Western Philosophy back on track.

In find that sad in that his own ontological views stand quite well on their own and do not depend on everybody else being wrong.

all of Western Philosophy went off the rails by misinterpreting the early Greek philosophers and that he (and he alone?) understood them correctly — Arne

I have this vague intuition that the Greeks had a certain Greek way of looking at things (cultural biases) and their philosophy is so colored/tainted. In other words, there's nothing right/correct about Greek ontology/metaphysics; it's just one culture's take on ontology in particular and philosophy in general. Heidegger's claim that he knew exactly what the Greeks were talking about then does nothing to close the distance between us and the truth. Understanding Greek philosophy is simply to get an idea of where the Greeks were coming from, that's all. Just saying.

I agree. However and so as not to be misquoted or taken out of context, the words you selected to put in quotation marks do not represent my views. Instead, they represent my interpretation of Heidegger's views with which I do not necessarily agree.

Though I am not convinced that all philosophy is quite as local as you suggest. In fact, I am quite confident that most of the early Greek philosophers considered themselves to be expounding more on being in general rather than Greek being in particular. Though you could be absolutely correct and they could all have been fooling themselves.

After all, human being is the being that questions being and that is true cross-culturally.

It is only the answers that vary between cultures.

And the answers are far less interesting than the questions.

Heidegger was a fucking nazi. Can't come no good philosophy from a nazi. He voluntarily joined.The essence of truth! Dasein... Er war da! All this stuff about beings and that human beings are the only beings including their own beings... All this stuff that you have to care about stuff before you can know the truth about them... Had he be a young man, looking for a new world or something like that, I could have imagined he joined the Nazi party. We all make mistakes and Hitler was a pretty convincing character. He wrote even antisemitic stuff, about a global jew conspiracy.

Just thought I'd mention. Please continue! It's out of my system.

Being and time. How's Dasein connected to time?

Yeah well H promotes "misunderstanding" both with the obscurant sophistry of his texts and rare, explicit statements such as

Those in the crossing must in the end know what is mistaken by all urging for intelligibility: that every thinking of being, all philosophy, can never be confirmed by ‘facts,’ i.e., by beings. Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy. — Contributions to Philosophy (From Enowning), Notes 1936-1938

Note N's prescient criticism sixty-something years before:

Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity. For the crowd believes that if it cannot see to the bottom of something it must be profound. It is so timid and dislikes going into the water. — The Gay Science, 173

(Emphases are mine.)

It is only the answers that vary between cultures.

And the answers are far less interesting than the questions. — Arne

:up:

Heidegger was a despicable man in many ways and his political views and behavior are surely at the top of the list.

That having been said, any serious philosopher who rejected Heidegger's ontological views because of Heidegger's despicable politics is as much a fool as an engineer who rejected the engineering principles of SS Officer Wernher von Braun.

If you want to prosecute Heidegger, then by all means prosecute Heidegger. If you are looking for someone to defend Heidegger, I am not that someone. If ordered by a court to defend Heidegger, I would surrender my license to practice law.

If you are looking for someone to discuss the nature of being that Heidegger pushes, then I am most definitely such a someone.

I am not a big fan of Heidegger's writings per se. But I am a huge fan of Being and Time. And I also find interesting The Origin of the Work of Art. And his published lectures from the courses immediately preceding and following the publication of Being and Time are helpful. His essay on technology does make one think.

Being and time. How's Dasein connected to time? — Agent Smith

I have no answer to that question. I am generally confused by Division II of Being and Time.

Note N's prescient criticism sixty-something years before: — 180 Proof

I like Nietzsche. But he too is no slouch when it comes to offering up obscurity. Much of his reputation is built upon the notion that he must be profound because he is so hard to understand.

And you know that to be true.

And I make no claim to understanding Nietzsche in any significant way. Even though I know I have read far more Nietzsche than most people who pretend to understand him, any understanding I do have is rooted primarily in Kaufman's interpretations.

Of course his philosophical writings stand separate from his political activities, it's just that I don't understand that he tells on the one side that you have to care about things to know what they are, and on the other side doesn't seem to be bothered to care about Jews, and following his own philosophy, the truth about them. I'm not saying you shouldn't discuss his ideas. He just doesn't apply them in practice. Had he cared about his fellow men, he would have known the truth about them.

I don't think that is an accurate interpretation of Heidegger. His concept of care has little to do with morality (perhaps like Heidegger himself?). Instead, I interpret his concept of care to be primarily rooted in the notion that what we do is rooted in what we care about in particular and not that we care in general. We do not organize our lives around caring in general. Instead, we organize our lives around what we care about in particular.

If one truly cares about white supremacy, then one will be a good Nazi.

I have no answer to that question. I am generally confused by Division II of Being and Time. — Arne

How unfortunate. Do let us know when you find out. G'day.

My interpretation is that you have to care about stuff to know the stuff. Be it a rock, a neighbor, or a Nazi party. Most of the universe stays hidden because we don't care about it. Dasein, the being there.

We do not organize our lives around caring in general. — Arne

Heidegger said that people are the only creatures with a dasein that has a notion of its own dasein. Didn't he mean simply that people are overly self conscious? Maybe he was himself to much self conscious. It can be a hindrance.

Has he a general theory about caring?

N can be difficult because philosophy is difficult, and his writings are quite clear with great style but not obscure or ponderous or syntactically-tortured like H's.

Even though I know I have read far more Nietzsche than most people who pretend to understand him, any understanding I do have is rooted primarily in Kaufman's interpretations.

:100: Same (plus R.J. Hollingdale's translations).

his writings are quite clear with great style — 180 Proof

I disagree.

Has he a general theory about caring? — Raymond

No. He does not have a general theory about caring. The German care does not have the same emotional and moral connotations as the English care. Again and for Heidegger, care is simply that which motivates and organizes your life. If you care about rocks, you might be well advised to become a geologist. What ever it is that you care about in whatever situation you find yourself is going to go a long way in explaining what you do and why you do it.

How unfortunate. Do let us know when you find out. G'day. — Agent Smith

You can count on it. I only hope you will do the same.

You can count on it. I only hope you will do the same. — Arne

Well here's what I recalled about metaphysics with great difficulty I must say:

Metaphysics
1. Causality
2. Ontology
3. Identity & Change
4. Necessity & Possibility
5. Space & Time

It seems Heidegger chose two areas in metaphysics (ontology & time) and tried to weave a coherent tale around them. Why and how, I haven't the foggiest.

the primary subject matter of Being and Time is an explication of Dasein in its average everydayness. — Arne

In division two, Heidegger moves on from average everydayness to talk about authentic angst and time. So even though what you say is true, once we have finished the book, we know about both inauthentic ( average everyday) and authentic Dasein.

Heidegger said that people are the only creatures with a dasein that has a notion of its own dasein. — Raymond

I have not come across Heidegger ever saying that humans are the only beings with Dasein. And if it turned out that other beings had a Dasein, it would matter not to Heidegger. Either you recognize Heidegger's description of the average everydayness of human existence or you don't. If we recognize it, then Heidegger is correct. If we don't recognize it, then Heidegger is incorrect.

Dasein is far more than consciousness of consciousness. Dasein is easier grasped if understood as a structure within which one makes their way about in the world. Dasein is always in a mood, with a certain understanding, and moving forward in the world in a purposeful manner. And that is the structure of the average everydayness of human being.

In division two, Heidegger moves on from average everydayness to talk about authentic angst and time. So even though what you say is true, once we have finished the book, we know about both inauthentic ( average everyday) and authentic Dasein. — Joshs

Heidegger does not equate average everydayness with inauthentic existence. Average everydayness is the context that allows Heidegger to explicate the structure of Dasein. A Dasein living inauthentically has the same structure as a Dasein living authentically. And even the authentically living Dasein lives most of its life in average everydayness. They wake up, fall out of bed, run a comb across their head. . .

And again and consistent with my original post, "finishing the book" only gets us through 2 parts of an incomplete 6 part project. Having an understanding of the average everydayness of being human and an understanding of what it means to live authentically does not get us to the goal described in what is mistakenly treated as an introduction to Being and Time, the meaning of being.

Notorious Nazi Heidegger
Whom Hitler had made all-aquiver
Tried hard to be hailed
Nazi-Plato, but failed
Then denied he had tried with great vigor.

I'm incorrigible, sorry. Imagine not acknowledging his supremacy. World's greatest Nazi, for sure. Philosophy's Fuhrer, as it were.

I'm incorrigible, sorry. Imagine not acknowledging his supremacy. World's greatest Nazi, for sure. Philosophy's Fuhrer, as it were. — Ciceronianus

Heidegger was not a good person.

:up:

Dasein is always in a mood, with a certain understanding, and moving forward in the world in a purposeful manner. And that is the structure of the average everydayness of human being. — Arne

Sounds like you identify Dasein with a human being, who are always in a mood, have a certain understanding, and move forward in the world purposefully.
That holds for animals too. It's my guess (I'm not sure) that Heidegger puts us aside of animals in that our Dasein has a Dasein about itself, wich is the much debated topic of the self, the I, self consciousness, or whatever. I'm not sure if this is a unique human quality. Too much of it maybe, especially in the current era. It's a necessary condition for freedom though.