The relevant context of one can be the the irrelevant or absurd context of others. Who is to say which context is relevant. They are relevant, but relevance is a subjective notion. You can set relevance of pragmatic context apart, and give it an objective importance, but then you cut it off from the real context appearing in practice. — Raymond

Exactly. Heidegger’s point, which is also the argument of the phenomenologists and Wittgenstein, is that objectivity is a derivative product of subjectively determined contexts of relevance. There is no such thing as a ‘real’ context if that is supposed to mean a state of affairs or facts existing independently of those who subjectively experience them. We can form intersubjective agreement concerning subjectively formed experiences , but this is only a relative consensus. This is what scientific practice is all about.

"Human speech was originally poetic. As Vico wrote, 'Poetry is the primary activity of the human mind. Man before he had arrived at the state of forming universals forms imaginary ideas, before he can articulate, he sings, before speaking in prose, he speaks in verse, before using technical terms, he uses metaphor.' It is difficult for modern man with his prosaic mode to realize that poetry is more natural to man than prose, and yet all the evidence of history shows it. The further we go back in time the more we come not on prose but on poetry." Bede Griffith

Heidegger always had a poetic touch but he knew what he wrote

Then H and me agree! A pity he was so adversive to the Jewish way, so to speak. I know it was pretty common in those days to be antisemite, and I think everybody has the right to be one, but to put your aversion in practice and remove "the problem" is fucking wrong. Nice piece you cited! Who wrote it?

Eugene Gendlin

It seems so strange still that someone writing about how one can be free in dailey life agrees with taking the freedom away of a whole group of people. Are you concerned with freedom then?

“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].” — Joshs

I like to interpret idle talk as automatic talk, as bot-speak. One is governed by habits of interpretation so automatic that one takes such interpretations for the essence of the world.

It appears that being is temporal (time). For example, Heidegger's being lasted from 1889 (born) to 1976 (died). Hence Being and Time.

It'd be interesting if being were viewed in a spatial sense e.g. Johanna Arendt's being could be described as that between Linden (born) and Manhattan (died). Then Heidegger's book would've been Being and Space

Why not both? :chin:

'Appearing and Disappearing' would have been a more descriptive title and far less cryptic. Or maybe not if I've only read into SuZ my own concerns and missed H's point(lessness). And while I'm at it, Sartre's overly-Cartesian and derivative B&N might as well be re-titled 'Body and Nobody' to clearly advertise its differences from H's opus. :smirk:

'Appearing and Disappearing' would have been a more descriptive title and far less cryptic. Or maybe not if I've only read into SuZ my own concerns and missed H's point(lessness). And while I'm at it, Sartre's overly-Cartesian and derivative B&N might as well be re-titled 'Body and Nobody' to clearly advertise its differences from H's opus. :smirk: — 180 Proof

That went over my teensy-weensy head, señor!

Being has (always) been contextualized in time.

Parmenides, the father of ontology, however, didn't do so - his argument rested on a contradiction entailed by Unbeing. Contradictions, though, have a time constraint: yes and no in the same sense and at the same time.

:clap:

:wink:

That went over my teensy-weensy head, señor! — Agent Smith

:yawn:

History is a nightmare from which the fundamental ontologist is trying to awake.

Being-there as being-in-the-world is primarily governed by logos…Coming into the world, one grows into a determinate tradition of speaking, seeing, interpreting. Being-in-the-world is an already-having-the-world-thus-and-so. This peculiar fact, that the world into which I enter, in which I awaken, is there for me in a determinate interpretedness, I designate terminologically as fore-having. — Heidegger

Sartre's overly-Cartesian and derivative B&N might as well be re-titled 'Body and Nobody' to clearly advertise its differences from H's opus. — 180 Proof

Hebert Dreyfus essentially called Being and Nothingness a masterful misinterpretation of another philosopher (Heidegger).

Being-there as being-in-the-world is primarily governed by logos…Coming into the world, one grows into a determinate tradition of speaking, seeing, interpreting. — Heidegger

That is good stuff. It would be great to have a citation if it is easily available. I am not asking you to go and track it down. But I like it.

Or maybe not if I've only read into SuZ my own concerns and missed H's point(lessness). — 180 Proof

I have never heard anyone say Heidegger is easy. And it is definitely hard to determine what his primary goal is. And that is the primary purpose of the post.

Failing to recognize that the primary goal (revealing the meaning of being) set forth in what is mistakenly referred to as the introduction to Being and Time causes many to presume the primary goal of Being and Time is to reveal the meaning of being. Instead, the goal of Being and Time is much less ambitious than and "preparatory" to revealing the meaning of being. As such, its primary goal is to describe the being who questions the meaning of being. And it is from there that one should be off and running.

So in that sense, what is possibly an inherently confusing subject to begin with (the nature of being) becomes ever more confusing beginning at page one.

I have been reading Heidegger for years and still have to orient myself from time to time by reminding myself that, in Heideggerian terms, I am being-in-the-world or I am an understanding of the world or I am an attunement to the world.

But my all time favorite orienting mantra is being is that on the basis of which being is already understood.

I have wasted many a fine summer hour smoking a cigar while trying to understand what the hell that means.

:smile:

:grin:

N can be difficult . . . and his writings are quite clear — 180 Proof

Thus Spake 180 Proof

:smile:

Failing to recognize that the primary goal (revealing the meaning of being) set forth in what is mistakenly referred to as the introduction to Being and Time causes many to presume the primary goal of Being and Time is to reveal the meaning of being. Instead, the goal of Being and Time is much less ambitious than and "preparatory" to revealing the meaning of being. — Arne

The introduction is indeed an introduction to Being and Time. The fact that the book wasn't completed doesn't negate this. Why? Because in the introduction -- and not elsewhere, since it wasn't written -- you have a discussion of the entirety of the book. For example, what was to be the second part: the "destruction" of the history with time as a clue, in Kant, Descartes, and Aristotle; and the 3rd Division of Part 1, "Time and Being." All discussed in the introduction.

So the introduction is very valuable indeed. If you want to fill out Being and Time, then Basic Problems of Phenomenology and Introduction to Metaphysics will do so.

The primary goal of Being and Time is, indeed, about the question of the meaning of being. That is the goal. What I see as a common mistake is when people assume he gives a definition or an interpretation of "being" himself. He most emphatically does not. So that is a common error. But to argue that it's an error to think his goal is what he in fact repeatedly says it is? That itself is an error -- in my view.

Also, the word "reveal" is misleading. His goal is to work out the question of the meaning of being -- to see on what basis the question is asked and upon which any interpretation whatsoever of being is given. That, it turns out, is time -- the "structure" (or "being") of dasein. Again he cites the Greeks's parousia and ousia as examples of this in the introduction (i.e., presence assumes the present moment, and hence time).

I have wasted many a fine summer hour smoking a cigar while trying to understand what the hell that means. — Arne

There are points of convergence between Heidegger and Eastern nondualist philosophy. There's an apocryphal tale that one of his colleagues came across him reading D T Suzuki - recall that Suzuki was lecturing at Columbia University mid-century - and Heidegger remarking that 'if I understand Suzuki correctly, this is what I have been trying to say in all my writings'. There has also been quite a lot of exegesis by Japanese academics of Heidegger in relation to Zen Buddhism, particularly the influential Shobogenzo of Dogen, the founding text of the Sōtō school.

This is not to say for a minute that Heidegger would ever have considered appropriating anything from Buddhism in his own writings. From what I understand whilst he had measured admiration for Buddhism - there's a youtube video of a recorded German TV dialogue between him and a Theravadin monk - he believed that the Western intellectual tradition had created its own crisis and had to find its way out on its own terms. Where I think it's a fruitful comparison, is that non-dualist philosophies are similarly antagonistic to discursive metaphysics but nevertheless provide a profound perspective on the meaning of being, which offers another way into understanding the meaning of 'being-in-the-world'. There's a book on this subject, Heidegger's Hidden Sources: East Asian Influences on his Work, Reinhard May. Also Zen and the Art of Postmodern Philosophy, Carl Olson.

But my all time favorite orienting mantra is being is that on the basis of which being is already understood. — Arne

It's "on the basis of which entities are already understood." That's a crucial difference.

Heidegger remarking that 'if I understand Suzuki correctly, this is what I have been trying to say in all my writings'. — Wayfarer

That's interesting. Can you provide a reference?

:fire: :eyes: Amor fati.

:up:

The introduction is indeed an introduction to Being and Time. The fact that the book wasn't completed doesn't negate this. Why? Because in the introduction -- and not elsewhere, since it wasn't written -- you have a discussion of what was to be the second part: the "destruction" of the history with time as a clue, in Kant, Descartes, and Aristotle. He discusses this in the introduction. He also discusses the 3rd Division of Part 1, "Time and Being," in the introduction.

So the introduction is very valuable indeed. If you want to fill out Being and Time, then Basic Problems of Phenomenology and Introduction to Metaphysics will do so.

The primary goal of Being and Time is, indeed, about the meaning of being. That is the goal. What I see as being mistaken is that many people assume he gives a definition or an interpretation of "being" himself. He most emphatically does not. So that is a common error. But to argue it's an error to think his goal is what he repeatedly says it is, is itself an error -- in my view. — Xtrix

1. Being and Time is complete. The 6 part project of which Being and Time is just 2 parts is incomplete.

2. At no point did I suggest that there is no value in the what is mistakenly referred to as the introduction to Being and Time. I only cautioned against mistaking it as an introduction to Being and Time when it is clearly an introduction to a much more ambitious 6 part project of which Being and Time comprises just 2 parts..

3. Your emphatic insistence notwithstanding, Heidegger defines being as ". . . that on the basis of which entities are already understood." (M&R at 25-26, 6 in the German.). I am always surprised by the number of people who miss that.

The below is from the last page of what is mistakenly referred to as the introduction to Being and Time. As you can see, the last page of what is mistakenly referred to as the introduction to Being and Time makes clear the introduction is to a 6 division project of which Being and Time comprises only the first 2 divisions. Surely you can see that.

If I can be any further assistance in clarifying the matter for you, then please consider me to be at your disposal.

portio

That's a crucial difference. — Xtrix

I was not quoting Heidegger. I was stating my favorite mantra. And that is a crucial difference.

And I am teasing you and I stand corrected. Though changing the contents of a mantra can be a difficult undertaking, I will do what I can.

:smile:

There are points of convergence between Heidegger and Eastern nondualist philosophy. — Wayfarer

This does not surprise me. Heidegger was raised Catholic, converted to Protestantism, and in his old age began to sound quite pantheistic.

1. Being and Time is complete. The 6 part project of which Being and Time is just 2 parts is incomplete. — Arne

Being and Time is most certainly not complete. It consisted of 2 parts with 6 divisions. Only two divisions were written -- both of part 1.

I don't know what "6 part project" you're referring to. Perhaps you can clarify.

Your "emphatically" insisting that he provides no definition of being is incorrect. — Arne

I'm not emphatically insisting, Heidegger emphatically insists.

He defines being as ". . . that on the basis of which entities are already understood." (M&R at 25-26, 6 in the German.). I am always surprised by the number of people who miss that. — Arne

I'm well aware of that line. It's also ironic that you mis-quoted it.

I wouldn't myself say that's a definition -- it's a one-time instance where he's trying to communicate how being gets interpreted: namely, as the basis for which beings are already understood. Later, he describes this as a pre-ontological understanding of being.

But let's assume you're correct, and this is his definition. Odd that a book about the question of the meaning of being only has one line about its meaning. What I described seems more probable.

The below is from the last page of what is mistakenly referred to as the introduction to Being and Time. — Arne

It's not a mistake to refer to the introduction of Being and Time as "the introduction to Being and Time." Because it IS the introduction to Being and Time. Whatever "six-part project" you're referring to, again I have no idea. I think it more likely you're confusing the proposed six divisions with "six parts." Being and Time was to have 2 parts consisting of six divisions. Where are you getting parts 3-6?

As you can see, the last page of what is mistakenly referred to as the introduction to Being and Time makes clear the introduction is to a 6 division project of which Being and Time comprises only the first 2 divisions. Surely you can see that. — Arne

Yes, can you?

So now you say it's six divisions. Before you said six "parts." So let's be clear about that, first. That's not me merely nit-picking; it's absolutely essential.

You're quite right: Being and Time, as we currently have it, consists of only 2 divisions of the proposed six divisions. Thus, it is incomplete. So why, then, did you say, above:

1. Being and Time is complete. The 6 part project of which Being and Time is just 2 parts is incomplete. — Arne

Did you mean 6 divisions? If so, why do you say Being and Time is just "2 [divisions]" of a six-division project, but then say it's complete?

The bottom line is this:

Being and Time was proposed as a 2 Part, 6 Division work. Only 2 divisions of Part 1 was published. The introduction touches on all of it: all divisions, both parts. Look no further than the last page you provided to see that the introduction goes through all of it, including the historical destruction of Kant, Descartes, and Aristotle.

Given that this is true, my statement stands: it is in no way a "mistake" to refer to the introduction of Being and Time as exactly that. Why? Because that's exactly what it is.

Fair enough.

Being and Time is most certainly not complete. It consisted of 2 parts with 6 divisions. Only two divisions were written -- both of part 1. — Xtrix

Seriously? He needed to provide a name for the completed parts so they could be published (the publish or die of academia.). He named the 2 completed parts Being and Time. It really is that simple.

Given that this is true, my statement stands: it is in no way a "mistake" to refer to the introduction of Being and Time as exactly that. Why? Because that's exactly what it is. — Xtrix

And even if you want to stand on that, people who wish to understand Being and Time should still be aware that what is labeled as an introduction is clearly intended to be an introduction to a larger body of work.

Surely you can see that?

Being and Time is most certainly not complete. It consisted of 2 parts with 6 divisions. Only two divisions were written -- both of part 1.
— Xtrix

Seriously? He needed to provide a name for the completed parts so they could be published (the publish or die of academia.). He named the 2 completed parts Being and Time. It really is that simple. — Arne

Not at all. The title was given to the entirety of what was proposed, which you yourself cited. He just never got around to finishing it. Which is why the introduction is so valuable -- in the introduction (really, the introductions), he goes through the entirety of the six-division proposal.

Most of Being and Time, including the divisions not finished, were eventually published in different works and were an outgrowth of lecture courses Heidegger gave in the 1920s. So both before and after 1927, you have plenty of material.

So it's not quite that simple, no.