The guiding question is about beings, things that are. The grounding question is not about any particular being or all beings, it is about Being, the wonder that there is anything at all. Heidegger's claim is that the grounding question of Being became lost as the focus was narrowed and guided by the question of beings. — Fooloso4
What are the decisive fundamental positions of the commencement (of Greek thought)? In other words, what sorts of answers are given to the as yet undeveloped guiding question, the question as to what being is?
The one answer-roughly speaking, it is the answer of Parmenides-tells us that being is. An odd sort of answer, no doubt, yet a very deep one, since that very response determines for the first time and for all thinkers to come, including Nietzsche, the meaning of is and Being - permanence and presence, that is, the eternal present.
The other answer-roughly speaking, that of Heraclitus-tells us that being becomes. The being is in being by virtue of its permanent becoming, its self-unfolding and eventual dissolution.
To what extent is Nietzsche's thinking the end? That is to say, how does it stretch back to both these fundamental determinations of being in such a way that they come to interlock? Precisely to the extent that Nietzsche argues that being is as fixated, as permanent; and that it is in perpetual creation and destruction. Yet being is both of these, not in an extrinsic way, as one beside another; rather, being is in its very ground perpetual creation (Becoming), while as creation it needs what is fixed. Creation needs what is fixed, first, in order to overcome it, and second, in order to have something that has yet to be fixated, something that enables the creative to advance beyond itself and be transfigured. The essence of being is Becoming, but what becomes is and has Being only in creative transfiguration. What is and what becomes are fused in the fundamental thought that what becomes is inasmuch as in creation it becomes being and is becoming. But such becoming-a-being becomes a being that comes-to-be, and does so in the perpetual transformation of what has become firmly fixed and intractable to something made firm in a liberating transfiguration. — ibid. page 200
↪Janus
I don't understand what Heidegger means by going beyond Metaphysics — Paine
Heidegger explicates the metaphysics of our understanding of Being or metaphysics of Dasein/existence (first level) and within which the temporal character of metaphysics as such becomes visible i.e. the critique of former trad. metaphysics becomes possible (second level). I think this, as a rough exposition, is the very basic framework of Heidegger's philosophy — waarala
↪Tom Storm
Heidegger's influence on progressive theology is strong. Tillich and God as the ground of being is an obvious example.
Hart's "surprise" seems contrived. — Fooloso4
Coming outside of philosophy, I find the notion of being fairly uninteresting. No doubt there is rigorous and serious scholarship behind Heidegger's work, but it often sounds like high end bong talk — Tom Storm
There are those, such as Derrida, who argued that Heidegger hadn’t managed to escape metaphysics with his approach, but Heidegger himself believed that what he was doing with his fundamental ontology no longer fell within the category of a metaphysics but instead inquired into the very ground of metaphysics itself. — Joshs
Heidegger of BT agreed with Kant that we can't avoid metaphysics. Human beings or their thinking/world view is inescapably metaphysical. What is required is a new, critical metaphysics — waarala
Thinking Being, will to power, as eternal return, thinking the most difficult thought of philosophy, means thinking Being as Time. Nietzsche thinks that thought but does not think it as the question of Being and Time. Plato and Aristotle also think that thought when they conceive Being as ousia (presence), but just as little as Nietzsche do they think it as a question.
If we do ask the question, we do not mean to suggest that we are cleverer than both Nietzsche and Western philosophy, which Nietzsche "only" thinks to its end. We know that the most difficult thought of philosophy has only become more difficult, that the peak of the meditation has not yet been conquered and perhaps not yet even discovered at all. — Heidegger, Lectures on Nietzsche, Vol 1, page 20e
Plato and Aristotle also think that thought when they conceive Being as ousia (presence), but just as little as Nietzsche do they think it as a question.
I think it would be more accurate if he said that this is how he thinks they thought that thought. But I think he would think that I am not thinking historically:
...until philosophy is forced to think historically-in a still more essential and original sense of that word-taking its own most grounding question as its point of departure. (186) — Fooloso4
Has a scholar who did much to pull apart the veil of Scholastic interpretation of Greek thinkers hidden them behind another? — Paine
Heidegger has to have Nietzsche's metaphysics (or the latest development of metaphysics) here in mind, he never referred to Aristotle or Hegel as nihilists. — waarala
. Heidegger combines an insightful and penetrating commentary with a presentation of earlier thinkers that is as much a misrepresentation as it is a re-presentation. Take his claim that Plato and Aristotle conceive Being as ousia (presence). — Fooloso4
Curiously, I'm catching a hint of conflation of a particular being or all beings with Being. — ucarr
To me this sounds like a description of a being, a reflexive being. And, moreover, this particular being is time. — ucarr
is not to think of Being as something in time.thinking Being as Time — Heidegger, Lectures on Nietzsche, Vol 1, page 20e
. The will to power and the eternal return are not beings, but that through which and by which what comes to be comes to be — Fooloso4
The question of Being proceeds by way of beings - "the Being of beings". — Fooloso4
thinking Being as Time — Heidegger, Lectures on Nietzsche, Vol 1, page 20e
is not to think of Being as something in time. — Fooloso4
The will to power and the eternal return are not beings... — Fooloso4
...but that through which and by which what comes to be comes to be. — Fooloso4
They are still beings in Heidegger’s reading of Nietzsche. — Joshs
Will to power is a value-positing being. — Joshs
The Being of the eternal return is ‘in time’ rather than temporal in Heidegger’s sense. — Joshs
(20)Thinking Being, will to power, as eternal return ... means thinking Being as Time.
The terror of being a dying animal is foregrounded, along with various responses to that terror. — green flag
Do you think this terror is ubiquitous? — Tom Storm
Will to power is a force. It is not a being that resides in beings — Fooloso4
Thinking Being as eternal return is not to think the Being of the eternal return.
He says "as time" not in time.
The eternal return is not in time, what is in time is what eternally returns. — Fooloso4
I think most of us don't feel this terror very often. — green flag
Is childhood a largely forgotten magical world full of monsters and queens ? — green flag
extrapolation from members of a set to an axiom of the set? — ucarr
Being is a blood brother to moebius-strip_time-loop? — ucarr
Of course people might 'cheat' and say that it's an unconscious fear that animates all aspects of our lives, etc. — Tom Storm
For Heidegger, will to power, whether you want to call it a force , value-positing or try at which makes beings possible, is that which persists as presence. — Joshs
“To modern metaphysics, the Being of beings appears as will.” — Joshs
“Since long ago, that which is present has been regarded as what is.”
— Joshs
Who are you quoting and from where? It is always helpful to discuss things in context. — Fooloso4
“To modern metaphysics, the Being of beings appears as will.”
— Joshs
I assume you are quoting Heidegger. The question is: is this true? Does modern metaphysics even address the Being of beings? What, for example, does Hegel say about will that can be regarded as meaning the Being of beings? — Fooloso4
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.