Who said anyone is special? Heidegger is not making any normative claims regarding Dasein. A bird is in a unique position for seeing the entire forest. A fish is in a unique position for seeing what is at the bottom of a lake. A human is in a unique position for seeing the ontological structure of being a human. There are no awards for being pre-ontological. — Arne
YES there are! That is the metaphysical hurdle we are just beginning to come to grips with as a species. Granted a few of us have always been a bit saucy and into caviar of the spirit, wisdom. But these days the love of wisdom is being translated into 'My self-indulgent grift for the unwary' — Chet Hawkins
Why say that? I am not pretending to be Heidegger. That's a very confusing reply.As true as all of that may be, it is important to keep in mind that those are your claims and not Heidegger's. — Arne
Why say that? I am not pretending to be Heidegger. That's a very confusing reply. — Chet Hawkins
Being-in-the-world is a fundamental state, not a social status. It doesn't make anybody special. — Arne
How is the relationship God possible, if God is unknown? Does K defines what God is?Where Kierkegaard intersects with existentialist themes is about man's relationship to God rather than about God. — fdrake
Why "unfortunately"?when K. writes man he definitely means men rather unfortunately. — fdrake
I agree that the distinction between the role I'm playing and who I am is very important here. But I don't think it was specifically based on existentialism, though it's more than likely that Hannah Arendt would have discussed it in her writing on Eichmann's trial. — Ludwig V
you implied that Dasein was reserved for humans — Chet Hawkins
'Better situated' is perhaps a sobering but ultimately timid term to describe agency, the burden of experience. It may be more true than not, but it plays games with truth, rather than addressing truth head-on. Either way, fallibility means mistakes will be made. So, better by far to face the truth with equal measures of courage and analysis. That is to say: As far as we know from this 'situation' we are the best equipped to make any description of ... anything, including the fundamental ontological structure of a fish, and quite to the point INSTEAD OF that fish making the same effort. To mention the fact that we are not ACTUALLY fish is rather silly, even if it is of passing interest as a point of note, mostly to tame conceit.you implied that Dasein was reserved for humans
— Chet Hawkins
I made no such implication. Instead, I did and do assert that Heidegger is better situated to describe the fundamental ontological structure of a human than of a fish. It matters not to Heidegger if fish turn out to have the same fundamental ontological structure as human. But how would he know? He doesn't experience being as a fish.
Dasein is the term given to any and all beings having the characteristics of Dasein. Being a Dasein is not a social status among biological organisms and it comes with no entitlements. — Arne
I wish pragmatists would find something less narrow-minded than "useful". This is also of interest:-Pragmatism is a wide-ranging philosophical position from which several aspects of Mead's influences can be identified into four main tenets:
1 True reality does not exist "out there" in the real world, it "is actively created as we act in and toward the world".
2 People remember and base their knowledge of the world on what has been useful to them and are likely to alter what no longer "works".
3 People define the social and physical "objects" they encounter in the world according to their use for them.
4 If we want to understand actors, we must base that understanding on what people actually do.
Three of these ideas are critical to symbolic interactionism:
1 the focus on the interaction between the actor and the world;
2 a view of both the actor and the world as dynamic processes and not static structures; and
3 the actor's ability to interpret the social world.
Why does it strike you as narrow minded? — frank
There is no distinction drawn here between the child's motivation and the result of the child's behaviour. No child ever plays in order to "learn to become both subject and object" even though that's the result of the play and evolution no doubt exploits that result. Some people seem completely unable to recognize that anything can be without purpose, so we get long explanations about art and morality (and even science) that seek to reduce them to something "useful".Mead theorized that human beings begin their understanding of the social world through "play" and "game". Play comes first in the child's development. The child takes different roles that he/she observes in "adult" society, and plays them out to gain an understanding of the different social roles. For instance, a child may first play the role of police officer and then the role of thief while playing "Cops and Robbers", and play the roles of doctor and patient when playing "Doctor". As a result of such play, the child learns to become both subject and object and begins to become able to build a self. However, it is a limited self, because the child can only take the role of distinct and separate others; they still lack a more general and organized sense of themselves.
How is the relationship God possible, if God is unknown? Does K defines what God is?
when K. writes man he definitely means men rather unfortunately.
Why "unfortunately"?
INSTEAD OF that fish making the same effort. — Chet Hawkins
Free will and choice are the only essence in existence. We make far too much of some things. But it is true that evolution drives the formation, the integration, of entities with more and more moral agency. — Chet Hawkins
The notion that existence precedes essence is pop-psychology. Heidegger says our existence is our essence and Sartre misinterprets Heidegger as saying existence precedes essence and now we all proceed as if if "existence precedes essence" is an existential given. It is not! — Arne
someone who is trying to understand all that is existentialism — Rob J Kennedy
I don't think it's a misinterpretation -- at least no more a misinterpretation than what Heidegger does with Aletheia; the man got criticized for not representing the notion historically correctly, — Moliere
I was caught up on the notion that Sartre misinterprets Heidegger. — Moliere
The notion that existence precedes essence is pop-psychology. Heidegger says our existence is our essence and Sartre misinterprets Heidegger as saying existence precedes essence and now all proceed as if if "existence precedes essence" is an existential given. It is not! — Arne
Well, ... Amen to that! Ha ha!I wish pragmatists would find something less narrow-minded than "useful". — Ludwig V
So you're more saying "these are not fundamental" -- which I hope you see we agree on. — Moliere
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.