Dasein is time.
— plaque flag
Does he say that? Why not Being and Dasein? I would have to read it in context before saying more. — Fooloso4
I think 'Witty's facts' (sinpliciter) are synonymous with actual relations. Anti-cartesian/platonic ontology (à la Spinoza ... Epicurus ... Laozi ...)1 The world is everything that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by these being all the facts.
1.12 For the totality of facts determines both what is the case, and also all that is not the case.
1.13 The facts in logical space are the world.
1.2 The world divides into facts.
1.21 Any one can either be the case or not be the case, and everything else remain the same. — Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 1921 (completed 1918)
Sorta-kinda. — Joshs
What he actually says is that Being is time. Being is disclosed to Dasein in its way of understanding. — Joshs
So what additional, clarifying insight does the cryptic "In-der-Welt-sein" offer? — 180 Proof
Yes, of course. Yes, you would. — plaque flag
What is time? became the question: Who is time? More closely: are we ourselves time? Or closer still: am I my time? In this way I come closest to it, and if I understand the question correctly, it is then taken completely seriously. Such questioning is thus the most appropriate manner of access to and of dealing with time as in each case mine. Then Dasein would be: being questionable.
It depends on what you want to count as philosophy, I guess. To me it's almost tautological to call philosophy 'hermeneutical fundamental ontology.' Philosophy unfolds, makes explicit, appropriates the hermeneutic situation...And what do Heidi's "tool ... transparency" and "explicit worldhood" insights clarify philosophically? Maybe these insights are anthropologically or psycho-cognitively interesting ... but I think they are philosophically trivial (i.e. redundant with respect to e.g. (early) pragmatism). — 180 Proof
“Temporalizing does not mean a "succession" of the ecstasies. The future is not later than the having-been, and the having-been is not earlier than the present. “Dasein "occurs out of its future"."Da-sein, as existing, always already comes toward itself, that is, is futural in its being in general." Having-been arises from the future in such a way that the future that has-been (or better, is in the process of having-been) releases the present from itself. We call the unified phenomenon of the future that makes present in the process of having been temporality.”(Being and Time) — Joshs
Sorta-kinda.
— Joshs
Nossir, exactly. "Dasein is time, time is temporal." — plaque flag
he leaves us with only questions and a promise for answers in a division III which was never produced. — Joshs
“In Being and Time, Being is not something other than time: "Time" is a preliminary name for the truth of Being, and this truth is what prevails as essential in Being and thus is Being itself.”(What is Metaphysics) — Joshs
We must be careful in attributing exactitude to Heidegger’s discussion of time at this preliminary point in his career — Joshs
Does time itself reveal itself as the horizon of being? — Joshs
he introduction to Concept of Time notes that in Chapter 3, “Heidegger warns against the 'misunderstanding' that would summarize his view as: 'Dasein is in each case time'. — Joshs
Would someone with little or no background in Heidegger understand this? — Fooloso4
This is the problem ... — plaque flag
Background is everything. — plaque flag
Would also be interested in you translating this out of Heideggerese. — fdrake
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
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
Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy. — 180 Proof
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
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.