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
“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
'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
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
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
Or maybe not if I've only read into SuZ my own concerns and missed H's point(lessness). — 180 Proof
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
I have wasted many a fine summer hour smoking a cigar while trying to understand what the hell that means. — 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 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. — Arne
Your "emphatically" insisting that he provides no definition of being is incorrect. — Arne
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
The below is from the last page of what is mistakenly referred to as the introduction to Being and Time. — Arne
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
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. — Xtrix
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
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
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.