Some interpret it to mean that we can transcend the cave, but others that we remain in it. Some despise Plato because no matter how deep they go they find only questions and not answers, others love him for the same reason — Fooloso4

Exactly. Disagreement is inherent to some issues. There would be no philosophy without it.

Interesting question. What do we even mean by academic philosophy? when I was an undergraduate, I mistakenly presumed academic philosophy was primarily the teaching of students regarding philosophy.

Now it seems more like an employment program for those with advanced degrees. I never hear anyone say "teach or perish."

I don't want to derail the topic but the Socratic tradition does not promise Truth. — Fooloso4

I agree. There is a reason The Allegory of the Cave comes early in the study of philosophy.

Philosophy is not easy. Even posing the issue raises issues. For example, I am unconvinced that "rational agreement" is elusive. Certainly, adherents of idealism (as opposed to realism) agree that idealism is correct. In that sense, there is significant rational agreement in most areas of philosophy.

What is lacking is consensus. Yet in some sense, a significant issue for which there was rational consensus would cease to be a philosophical issue. To some degree (perhaps a significant degree), argument is the essence of philosophy. If a consensus is ever agreed to regarding an issue, the argument is over and philosophy will (of necessity?) move on to other issues.

I genuinely believe that philosophy is good for an education. — Moliere

I agree. My original undergraduate major was political science with a minor in philosophy. But the residency requirements at the school I was attending required me to remain 2 more semesters even though the actual number of credits needed was satisfied. So I turned my minor into a second major and spent the next 2 semesters studying only philosophy. It was the best academic decision I ever made.

So then, not as minimal as you claimed? — Fooloso4

And how minimal did I claim it to be? I was referring to the historical body of written philosophy which does not indicate that contemplation of the beauty and the good were somehow the central themes of philosophy either before or after Plato. And I am certainly not arguing against either as legitimate subject matter for philosophy.

How can any of us even say philosophy went wrong without having some shared understanding of what we mean by philosophy?
— Arne

And yet it is a term you have been using. You even claim:

Philosophy is not an end in itself, it is a tool.
— Pantagruel — Fooloso4

This confuses me. I do not know who you mean by "you." I am not both Arne and Pantagruel. But if you are addressing me, it would be unreasonable to expect me not to use the term "philosophy" when responding to a post about how philosophy "went wrong." In addition, it is not my post so what the poster means by the term strikes me as the appropriate question. I already know what I mean by the term.

And just to be clear, none of us is any more qualified than the other to talk about those philosophical contemplations that were not committed to writing. That is just kind of a non-starter.

I do not disagree that more philosophical contemplations regarding the good and the beautiful may be good. But nobody's permission is required.

On what basis do you claim that contemplation of the beautiful and the good" is actually quite minimal? Philosophical practice did not always generate or result in writings. — Fooloso4

You may rest assured I speak only to those philosophical views that resulted in writings. How could I possibly speak to those that did not result in writings? As for those that did result in writings, the philosophy writings in the libraries I visit are not dominated by contemplations of the beautiful and the good in general or in a historical timeline. And as far as I know, aesthetics and ethics are still lively subject matter.

Are you suggesting that philosophy should be more limited in its subject matter or that it would become so if not dominated by the academy and/or industrial forces?

What is philosophy and who are philosophers anyway? Is there an agreed upon understanding of what philosophy is and/or who qualifies as a philosopher? How can any of us even say philosophy went wrong without having some shared understanding of what we mean by philosophy?

What do you mean by philosophy?

Contemplation of the beautiful and the good pushed aside as being of no practical use. The question of how best to live replaced by the problem of how to secure the right to live as one wants. — Fooloso4

I am not convinced that the above is anything new. Such tensions have always been in philosophy. The actual amount of historical time in which philosophy per se was about "contemplation of the beautiful and the good" is actually quite minimal as are the philosophers who pushed such notions. As worthy as the "contemplation of the beautiful and the good" may be, it was never a philosophical paradigm.

Similarly, there has always been philosophy as industry. The democratization of higher education has simply made the industry larger.

It is the case that if Kant’s Prolegomena claims that we cannot know anything of God (or other supernatural things for that matter) through rational thought — ClayG

is this any different than saying "those who do rational theology should disagree with Kant's claim that we cannot know anything of God through rational thought"?

And my guess is that such people would disagree with Kant.

Philosophy has become in large part insular and self-referential. Written by philosophers for philosophers. — Fooloso4

Has this not always been the case? I suppose philosophers may not have always been writing for philosophers. But they have always been writing for a small target audience. Though occasional writings may break through to a larger audience, even that audience tends to be limited to intellectuals.

How would philosophy look different if philosophy had not "went wrong"?

However, memetics ain't language any more than shapes are clouds or events are time. — 180 Proof

Indeed.

I am what's left when you subtract out the Other, yes. — frank

Indeed!

So a sense of self emerges from the process of becoming the still centre of a world in smooth predictable motion. You and your target are one. Two halves of the psychological equation. The wider world is likewise reduced to a continuous flow. The brain is modelling reality in a cleanly divided fashion which is not a model of the world, but a model of us in the world as the world’s still and purposeful centre, with the world then passing by in a smooth and predictable manner. — apokrisis

Good stuff.

↪Mikie Proudly declaring your ignorance. Not a good look. — Jamal

As opposed to proudly pretending not to be ignorant?

you might get more responses if your post was more than "Go and research Zizek for me so I don't have to." — bert1

:-)

putting things in my own words forces me to think through and articulate what I think is meant by a statement. What may seem clear to me upon reading it may turn out to need further work on my part if I am to understand it. — Fooloso4

excellent point!

I would go so far as to say that if I cannot put it my own words, then I do not understand it.

But those sources didn’t prepare me for the real thing, which was a life-changing experience for me. — Joshs

My experience is very much the same.

Now I continuously read Being and Time in conjunction with other writers. I especially like William Blattner and Taylor Carmen.

From a religious perspective, God is more pleased by a genuine search of the truth instead of a blind assent to authority. That is besides the point though. Philosophically speaking, truth must be searched and questioned absolutely until it is found absolutely and can no longer be questioned absolutely. Recognizably, this is not easy, yet Christ has taught that the Christian life is not easy. However, you are correct that questioning one's beliefs can actually strengthen those beliefs, or if one discovers the truth, destroy that belief. Yet if you discover the truth, then those beliefs were better off gone. Truth is the ideal principle of Christianity, as Christ is in the faith, Truth Himself. At least, this is what Christ intended, but that many Christians do not practice Truth, or even understand the truth of Truth, is reality. — IP060903

Good stuff.

All should question their beliefs on a regular and ongoing basis.

I never said anything about definition or meaning — Mikie

Then why did you spend so much time arguing that the definition given didn't count?

Perhaps I misinterpreted. Either way, we had an excellent discussion and we seem to be in agreement that the ontology thesis presented in Being and Time is worthy of being studied as an ontology thesis regardless of significant moral shortcomings on the part of the author.

I re-read all of your posts on this thread and they are good.

I'm an atheist — plaque flag

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

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 was raised Catholic myself. — plaque flag

me too.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

"Being [is] that upon the basis of which entities are already understood." Being and Time, pp. 25-26.

As for the "meaning" of being, William Blattner argues that Heidegger is after the "structure" of being. And Heidegger most definitely has something to say about that.

We do tend to attach cool sounding labels to that which we cannot explain and then proceed as if the label explains all.

But Being and Time is the famous book, so everyone grabs that. To me it's not the best introduction. A little Heidegger Reader might be better. — plaque flag

His lectures were published at his leisure while Being and Time was rushed. Both the History of the Concept of Time and Basic Problems of Phenomenology were first published in the 1970s. Being and Time was a classic by then.

Well, if they don't work very hard to 'conserve' affordable prices on beer, then I will sharpen my pitchfork even more, and persuade the rich people, that we are all coming to drink free beer at their houses — universeness

I like beer.

We are so Cartesian.

I can't comment on the later Heidegger. I will reiterate that his style is direct and clear in the lectures that led up to the writing of Being and Time. — plaque flag

I agree. The same is true of some of the lectures immediately following Being and Time as contained in Basic Problems of Phenomenology.

It was unstated and not argued because that is not my position. — Fooloso4

I did not mean to suggest otherwise. I was speaking about the the thread in general.

The first is what his contribution to ethics might be. I don't see anything in his discussion of care that applies to ethics. — Fooloso4

I agree. I am unaware of any significant contribution to ethics on the part of Heidegger.

My primary interest in Heidegger is Division One of Being and Time. I am far more interested in the nature of being than I am in either prosecuting or defending Heidegger.

Isn't that the problem? Heidegger's 'care' does not answer the question raised: — Fooloso4

No. That is not the problem. I raised the question and the question was not being asked of Heidegger. There seems to be an unstated and essentially unargued claim that philosophical works may be dismissed if their authors fail to meet a heightened standard of morality.

Heidegger was not a good person for many reasons with his Nazism foremost among those reasons. But that does not render invalid everything he has to say about the meaning of being anymore than Nazism renders invalid every significant cinematic idea of Leni Riefenstahl or engineering principle of SS Officer Wernher von Braun.

I suspect that Being and Time was fated to be a major philosophical work regardless of the fortunes of the Nazis.

Well said.

The basis of Dasien’s being-in-the-world is care. By care, Heidegger does not mean sentimental concern. He means that our connection with other people and things ( the things we experienced are understood by reference to their relevance to our human relationships) is one of pragmatic involvement — Joshs

It is often difficult for some (especially those whose native tongue is English) to get a grasp on Heidegger's concept of care. One could care very much about being a good Nazi.

Tribalism fuels hatred which fuels politics which fuels tribalism. . .

I suppose it is a matter of where one jumps into the circle. . .

education is only helpful in procuring better jobs — Isaac

Emphasis added.

A bit of a stretch.

tribalism is the main issue — Tom Storm

Tribalism fuels hatred which fuels politics which fuels tribalism which fuels hatred . . . ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

"The ability to make choices not constrained by determinism or randomness". — Cidat

What would make the above definition of free will (or any other definition) a "libertarian" definition?