He’s pretty clearly un-Christian. — Mikie

This is what I was referring to as "layers of meaning". He can't use the term without the association with some concept and meaning being attached to it.

... god as uncreated substance is simply more substance ontology — Mikie

Right. The term has a lot of baggage, including the idea of God as a being. Tillich picks up on this. Rather than a supreme being he says that God is the ground of being.

I think that Heidegger remained open to and accepting of what comes to be because he retained belief in the notion of providence.

I think that Heidegger remained open to and accepting of what comes to be because he retained belief in the notion of providence. — Fooloso4

:up:
... à la "the holy ghost" or dao, no?

Yes, I’m very familiar with that one line. Once context is put back, it’s not necessarily Heidegger’s claim. And it would be very odd indeed if this casual sentence is the final word on it. — Mikie

I disagree.

First, I do not understand what you mean when you say it is not necessarily Heidegger's claim. Whose claim is it?

And second and most important of all, since the project of which Being and Time is a part is laying out the structure of being rather than defining being, Heidegger's definition of being is hardly the final word on the structure of being.

I think that Heidegger remained open to and accepting of what comes to be because he retained belief in the notion of providence. — Fooloso4

I don’t recall Heidegger ever talking about, let alone believing in, the notion of providence.

Rather than a supreme being he says that God is the ground of being. — Fooloso4

Yes— Tillich does. Not Heidegger. So I’m still not sure why you’re convinced he sees being as God.

I think the closest we can say about Heidegger’s view of being is that it is very much related to time (in the sense of temporality) and aletheia. But that’s not saying much, of course. So it goes.

First, I do not understand what you mean when you say it is not necessarily Heidegger's claim. Whose claim is it. — Arne

Ugh, you’re gonna make me pull out B/T aren’t you? :lol:

The prior paragraph he’s talking about how being is prevalently understood, and how it’s therefore not totally unfamiliar to us. It’s the “vague average understanding” of being. He also says that we can’t yet give a clarification of the meaning of being just yet.

In this context, when he refers to being as “that which determines entities as entities,” he may be referring to this average understanding which we are all familiar with. He’s also trying to make clear that being is itself not an entity, although we have to interrogate an entity (us) to learn about it.

In this context, I think it’s much more likely that this sentence wasn’t meant as a serious definition. That would be quite weird, given the entire book is about it. To answer it with a casual aside is unlikely.

since Being and Time is about laying out the structure of being rather than defining being, the definition offered is hardly the final word. Instead, the structure is the final word. — Arne

I don’t buy this idea of structure. He’s quite clear that the question is the meaning of being. Says it over and over again. I’m not sure where he says anything about the “structure of being.”

Because I’m not able to get at an online version right now, I’ll leave you with this photo from my book as evidence:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/790451

Hermeneutically, a philosopher's pedagogical biography and the cultural context of his or her 'thinking' matter, no? :chin:

... and aletheia. — Mikie

Aka "revelation" (just as authenticity loosely corresponds to "grace" or "piety").

:halo:

Regardless of manifest expressions or lack thereof in the post-Husserlian writings leading up to and including (at least) SuZ, the 'structure' (language-speaking) of H's (early?) reflections on 'being', it's reasonable to assume, was markedly influenced – though of course not exclusively determined – by his (early) Jesuit education, studying neo-Thomist theology before switching to neo-Kantian philosophy and writing a habilitation thesis (i.e. PhD dissertation) on the Scholastic theologian-philosopher Dun Scotus. Not long after, H would make a considerable study of 'biblical hermeneutics' (e.g. Dilthey & theologian Schleiermacher) which, reformulated, plays a centrol role in SuZ.

:pray:

Over three decades ago I recall first reading SuZ (on my own) – it was several years after my own dozen years of Jesuit schooling and altar boy upbringing – and, despite my subsequently studied and committed atheism, I could not help reading Catholic, even biblical, concepts in between the lines of the text and connotated by H's use of (undefined, cryptic) terms like "being" "authenticity" "ownmost" "resoluteness" "the they" "dasein" "being-towards-death" "forgetting of being" "temporality" etc.

I don’t recall Heidegger ever talking about, let alone believing in, the notion of providence. — Mikie

I don't either. It was meant to be suggestive. It is not something I have looked into.

So I’m still not sure why you’re convinced he sees being as God. — Mikie

I am not convinced. In fact when I wrote it I considered adding that I would not insist that this is correct. This paper might be of interest. In addition, there is the Der Spiegel interview:

If I may answer briefly, and perhaps clumsily, but after long reflection: philosophy will be unable to effect any immediate change in the current state of the world. This is true not only of philosophy but of all purely human reflection and endeavor. Only a god can save us. The only possibility available to us is that by thinknig and poetizing we prepare a readiness for the appearance of a god, or for the absence of a god in [our] decline, insofar as in view of the absent god we are in a state of decline.
...
We can not bring him forth by our thinking. At best we can awaken a readiness to wait [for him].
...
It is not through man that the world can be what it is and how it is -- but also not without man. In my view, this goes together with the fact that what I call "Being" (that long traditional, highly ambiguous, now worn-out word) has need of man in order that its revelation, its appearance as truth, and its [various] forms may come to pass.

In this context, I think it’s much more likely that this sentence wasn’t meant as a serious definition. — Mikie

Whether you consider it a "serious" definition is beside the point.

And as I already stated, it is William Blattner (not I) who argues that by "meaning" Heidegger is getting at "structure."

And I do not see why it would be such a big deal to offer an introductory definition of the term whose "meaning" he wishes to articulate. After all, "definition" and "meaning" are not necessarily synonymous.

How serious you choose to take the definition is up to you. But the definition is consistent with all that follows.

was markedly influenced – though of course not exclusively determined – by his (early) Jesuit education, studying neo-Thomist theology before switching to neo-Kantian philosophy and writing a habilitation thesis (i.e. PhD dissertation) on the Scholastic theologian-philosopher Dun Scotus. Not long after, H would make a considerable study of 'biblical hermeneutics' (e.g. Dilthey & theologian Schleiermacher) which, reformulated, plays a centrol role in SuZ. — 180 Proof

:up:

I could not help reading Catholic, even biblical, concepts in between the lines of the text and connotated by H's use of (undefined, cryptic) terms like "being" "authenticity" "ownmost" "resoluteness" "the they" "dasein" "being-towards-death" "forgetting of being" "temporality" etc. — 180 Proof

I agree. He is twisting his inheritance. Falling immersion is a state of [ original, necessary ] sin.

Felix culpa !

I find strange tendrils running between Joyce and Heidegger. (But then Vico and Heidegger are comparable.)

Regardless of manifest expressions or lack thereof in the post-Husserlian writings leading up to and including (at least) SuZ, the 'structure' (language-speaking) of H's (early?) reflections on 'being', it's reasonable to assume, was markedly influenced – though of course not exclusively determined – by his (early) Jesuit education, studying neo-Thomist theology before switching to neo-Kantian philosophy and writing a habilitation thesis (i.e. PhD dissertation) on the Scholastic theologian-philosopher Dun Scotus. Not long after, H would make a considerable study of 'biblical hermeneutics' (e.g. Dilthey & theologian Schleiermacher) which, reformulated, plays a centrol role in SuZ. — 180 Proof

Indeed!

I agree. He is twisting his inheritance. Falling immersion is a state of [ original, necessary ] sin. Felix culpa ! — plaque flag

I have stated on many occasions that Heidegger is not a good person for many reasons with his Nazism being foremost among them.

And this is an example of what is number 2 on the list, intellectual dishonesty. Heidegger would go out of his way to interpret the most fragmented and obscure text in such way as to support his ontology and in such a way as to suggest that the pre-Socratics agreed with him and he was just returning philosophy to its roots. Simply put, his intellectual honesty is suspect.

was markedly influenced – though of course not exclusively determined – by his (early) Jesuit education — 180 Proof

I could not help reading Catholic, even biblical, concepts in between the lines of the text — 180 Proof

There's bound to be some influence. But how that translates to the text and its question is what I'm interested in. So far no one has presented anything very convincing. Likewise for the post hoc Nazi analyses.

As for reading Catholicism into the text -- what can I say? Seems like that's projection. Heidegger's language takes a lot of time to get used to, and requires serious study. He acknowledges the awkwardness of his writings, incidentally. So it's very easy to read anything you want into the text, if so inclined. I could probably come up with an elaborate explanation of the text as being related to Star Wars somehow -- being = the force, the Jedi are authentic humans, etc. etc.

I don't either. It was meant to be suggestive. It is not something I have looked into. — Fooloso4

:up:

Only a god can save us.

I always interpreted this in the context of what Heidegger writes about the Greeks and their gods. So yes, in a way I largely agree: I think our entire culture has to change, right down to our religious beliefs. The Greeks "religion" was tied up with Homeric stories, involving lots of gods and heroes, and they had a pretty healthy culture (for a while). I'm with Nietzsche (and Heidegger) on this one: perhaps we need to develop better gods. Perhaps even bringing some of the older ones back.

But that's my interpretation. I can see how one may reasonably think it's a reflection of Heidegger's remaining (subconscious) Catholicism or something like that.

Whether you consider it a "serious" definition is beside the point. — Arne

It's exactly the point. You present this one infamous line as evidence that he does indeed define being. It's extremely weak, for the reasons given above.

How serious you choose to take the definition is up to you. But the definition is consistent with all that follows. — Arne

Yeah, that's true. Like the water to the fish or the light in the room: something in the background, something that gets ignored, overlooked, hidden, "concealed."

It's not that it isn't consistent, it just seems unlikely that this is what Heidegger wants to say about it rather than describing the common (albeit tacit) understanding -- which has its importance as well. Heidegger talks much more about time, presence-at-hand, and aletheia in the writings that follow.

I have stated on many occasions that Heidegger is not a good person for many reasons with his Nazism being foremost among them. — Arne

No need, in my view, to discuss his character again. I dig what he did with his inheritance. I was raised Catholic myself.

Heidegger would go out of his way to interpret the most fragmented and obscure text in such way as to support his ontology and in such a way as to suggest that the pre-Socratics agreed with him and he was just returning philosophy to its roots. Simply put, his intellectual honesty is suspect. — Arne

:up:

Fair enough. Personally I don't mind creative interpretations. But one should be upfront about it.

Among members of the long-running Heidegger Circle, there is an endless debate between theologically-oriented Heideggerians and atheist Heideggerians concerning his relation to God:

Here’s some quotes to chew on:

Heidegger on God:

Heidegger, GA 73.2: 1000

13. Being and God

The pressing question of the relation of being and God should better restrain its fervor, and instead of demanding answers from me, one should ask themselves how far one is at peace with the esse— to say nothing of God and its comprehensibility.

But this prudence of thoughtful reflection is just what I've already insisted upon time and again for nearly a quarter century, in order to awaken this reflection.

Moreover — my thinking does not at all require this — I would be very happy to receive an exposition on this issue that people so easily and seriously propose as an objection against me; thereby we turn the assignment and order of responsibilities and paths around!

14. The Relation of Seyn and God

1. how “being”? As being of beings or beyng? Or beyng?

2. what is God? Which God? The God of the bible? Or the God of fundamental-theology — the “natural God”?

Heidegger, GA 73.2: 991

2. Of Being

The lightest of the slight is beyng.

The most entity-like of entities is God.

In beyng, the distinction between beings and being (in the sense of beingness) comes into its own.

Being means: presence.

Seyn never lets itself be identified with God. It also always remains doubtful whether the proposition, God is the most being-like of beings, speaks of God according to divinity.

As the most being-like, God is the first cause and the last goal of all beings. God is represented as the most being-like of beings, and so God essentially occurs out of beyng. Nevertheless, God is not primordially linked to beyng; because beyng occurs essentially not as cause and never as ground.

As for reading Catholicism into the text -- what can I say? Seems like that's projection. — Mikie

To me it's an influence among others. Why can't it make the work better ?

It also always remains doubtful whether the proposition, God is the most being-like of beings, speaks of God according to divinity. — Joshs

Nevertheless, God is not primordially linked to beyng; because beyng occurs essentially not as cause and never as ground. — Joshs

Negative theology. Which ain't necessarily a bad thing.

I was raised Catholic myself. — plaque flag

me too.

me too. — Arne

Cool.

For context, I'm an atheist who still finds theology interesting (as implicit anthropology, or something like that.)

It's not that it isn't consistent, it just seems unlikely that this is what Heidegger wants to say about it rather than describing the common (albeit tacit) understanding — Mikie

Again, you are the one who is making this in to something bigger than it is and I can only guess as to why, i.e., you seem to think that definition and meaning are synonymous. They are not. For example, the "definition" of a cross as "a mark, object, or figure formed by two short intersecting lines or pieces" is insignificant compared to its "meaning" for some religions.

Similarly, there is no doubt that the the "definition" of being Heidegger offers is insignificant compared to the "meaning" of being that Heidegger intends to and does articulate.

With all due respect, it is only in your head that the offering of an introductory definition must be considered significant.

I think it is a good definition and gives little away.

I am done now.

I'm an atheist — plaque flag

when asked if I believe in God, I usually (and honestly) say "sometimes."

As with the question of Being, he strives to keep the questioning going. I suspect that if asked what he believes he would deflect and say that what is important is not his beliefs but thinking.

... à la "the holy ghost" or dao, no? — 180 Proof

Given his claim that philosophy is occidental then not dao. Or at least not until he cloaked it in a chiton.

Das Heilige Geist via Hegel and Holderlin is on target.

Thanks for those. :up:

Similarly, there is no doubt that the the "definition" of being Heidegger offers is insignificant compared to the "meaning" of being that Heidegger intends to and does articulate. — Arne

True, definition and meaning aren't necessarily the same thing. But this started with:

But as for what being is? Heidegger, as far as I’ve seen, never really says. — Mikie

I never said anything about definition or meaning. So if you're going to now make a sharp distinction between "definition" and "meaning," and claim that the one well-known sentence in the introduction counts as "definition" but says nothing about "meaning," it seems rather odd -- given that I didn't necessarily ask for a definition. I asked what it is.

But OK -- I'm willing to be done with this too. Seems moot now.

when asked if I believe in God, I usually (and honestly) say "sometimes." — Arne

:up:

Das Heilige Geist via Hegel and Holderlin is on target. — Fooloso4

:cool:

I don't think he ever is honest enough to come out and say it. Being is God. — Fooloso4

He critiques onto-theology, but perhaps that is a screen (for himself and others).

As with the question of Being, he strives to keep the questioning going. I suspect that if asked what he believes he would deflect and say that what is important is not his beliefs but thinking. — Fooloso4

I am unable to discern what Heidegger thinks about god from those references.

As the most being-like, God is the first cause and the last goal of all beings. God is represented as the most being-like of beings, and so God essentially occurs out of beyng. Nevertheless, God is not primordially linked to beyng; because beyng occurs essentially not as cause and never as ground. — Joshs

I can't tell if this is describing god as extant or god as the idea is understood.

god as the idea is understood. — Tom Storm

Pretty sure it's this. If God is just the most glorious thing, the cause and the ground of all other things even, it or he is still not nearly as rad as beyng [ the true God in impenetrable darkness and mist ? to be fair it's pretty god as theology goos... ]