The most significant problem with this misinterpretation is that it then causes people to mistakenly presume that the primary subject matter of Being and Time is the meaning of being.
It is not.
Instead, the primary subject matter of Being and Time is an explication of Dasein in its average everydayness. — Arne
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 — 180 Proof
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. . . — Arne
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. — Arne
It's my guess (I'm not sure) that Heidegger puts us aside of animals in that our Dasein has a Dasein about itself — Raymond
Certainly other animals appear to have an understanding, be in a mood, and act with purpose. But we have no basis for presuming animals have their own individualized "ultimate for the sake of which" or that they are beings that question being.
Heidegger makes no claim that Dasein is unique to human beings and his views do not depend upon any such uniqueness. If it turned out that every Dolphin had their own "ultimate for the sake of which" or that Dolphins spent a lot of time questioning being, Heidegger wouldn't care. — Arne
Average everydayness is what Heidegger calls Das Man
— Joshs
That is incorrect. — Arne
“But the average everydayness of Da-sein must not be understood as a mere "aspect. " In it, too, and even in the mode of inauthenticity, the structure of existentiality lies a priori. In it, too, Da-sein is concerned with a particular mode of its being to which it is related in the way of average everydayness, if only in the way of fleeing from it and of forgetting it.”(BT Sec.9) — Joshs
To be more precise Das Man is the subject of average everydayness. — Joshs
As true as that may be, it is true for all Daseins regardless of their state of "authenticity." "Even in the mode of inauthenticity" is not the same as "only in the mode of inauthenticity." Surly you must see that. — Arne
I agree.Average everydayness is not a mere , generic reference — Joshs
As I clearly stated earlier, "average everydayness" is the context Heidegger uses to explicate the basic structure of Dasein, i.e., the structure common to all Daseins regardless of any particular state of authenticity. — Arne
But always in the context of the question of the meaning of being, which Heidegger repeats over and over again — Xtrix
he uses the context of average everydayness to explain the elements common to every situation in which we find our self, i.e., we proceed based upon our attunement, our understanding, and our projected outcome. That is true all Daseins whether they be good, bad, short, tall, authentic, inauthentic. . . — Arne
I certainly think he falls short — Arne
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 — Arne
If I am confident I can reveal to you the meaning of baseball if I can explain to you hitting, pitching, fielding, and baserunning and I explain hitting and nothing more, then neither you nor I can claim to I have revealed the meaning of baseball — Arne
“Idle talk conceals simply because of its characteristic failure to address things in an originary way [urspriinglichen Ansprechens]. It obscures the true appearance of the world and the events in it by instituting a dominant view [herrschende Ansicht].”“Usually and for the most part the ontic mode of being-in (discoverture) is concealment [Verdeckung]. Interpretedness, which is speech encrusted by idle talk, draws any given Dasein into 'one's' way of being. But existence in the 'one' now entails the concealment and marginalization of the genuine self [eigentlichen Selbst]. Not only has each particular given itself over to 'one', 'one' blocks Dasein's access to the state it finds itself in [Befindlichkeit].”(Heidegger 2011) — Joshs
I strongly encourage you to try and make your way through Division II successfully — Joshs
Seems like H expresses the same as science does. There is everyday experience. Conceiled (verdeckte) and hidden Daseins (the things that are there). The true Daseins (scientific reality) is clouded by idle talk. What is needed is an originary language talk, "ursprunglichen Ansprechens", the language of science. Idle talk obscures the true appearance of the world by imposing "herschende Ansichte" (non-scientific ones). — Raymond
That will be a good thread. I'd like to collaborate, if you don't mind.Why don't we compile an anthology consisting of how various philosophies/philosophers are/can be misunderstood. — Agent Smith
He would not claim that everydayness and idle talk are untrue , only that they cut themselves off from the wider contexts of pragmatic engagement and relevance which make them fully intelligible. — Joshs
So only pragmatic engagement is relevant and make idle talk fully comprehensible? — Raymond
If only the members of his party hadn't followed his advice! If only the idle talk of the Nazis had remained just that. Idle talk... — Raymond
Pragmatic engagement isn’t something above and beyond idle talk as some sort of physical activity, it is the condition of possibility of idle talk and all other forms of language and experience in general. All experiences of perception and thought emerge out of contexts of relevance. — Joshs
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.