“But the average everydayness of Da-sein must not be understood as a mere "aspect. " In it, too, and even in the mode of inauthenticity, the structure of existentiality lies a priori. In it, too, Da-sein is con­cerned with a particular mode of its being to which it is related in the way of average everydayness, if only in the way of fleeing from it and of forgetting it.”(BT Sec.9) — Joshs

As true as that may be, it is true for all Daseins regardless of their state of "authenticity." "Even in the mode of inauthenticity" is not the same as "only in the mode of inauthenticity." Surly you must see that.

Average everydayness is what Heidegger calls Das Man — Joshs

That is incorrect.

It's my guess (I'm not sure) that Heidegger puts us aside of animals in that our Dasein has a Dasein about itself — Raymond

We can know how we are and we can recognize a description of how we are. Heidegger also maintains that we are the being who questions being and we have no basis whatsoever for claiming that any other types of beings question being.

In addition, each Dasein has an "ultimate for the sake of which" and that different Daseins can have a different "ultimate for the sake of which." And we have no basis to conclude that other types of beings of any "ultimate for the sake of which."

Certainly other animals appear to have an understanding, be in a mood, and act with purpose. But we have no basis for presuming animals have their own individualized "ultimate for the sake of which" or that they are beings that question being.

Heidegger makes no claim that Dasein is unique to human beings and his views do not depend upon any such uniqueness. If it turned out that every Dolphin had their own "ultimate for the sake of which" or that Dolphins spent a lot of time questioning being, Heidegger wouldn't care.

Heidegger never considered consciousness or consciousness of consciousness to be particularly interesting topics. Ultimately, the only recollection I have of any fundamental Heideggerian position on consciousness is that it is derivative of being-in-the-world. If anything, I suspect Heidegger would be a bit perplexed by the all the attention it receives in contemporary philosophy.

Isn't the answer always going to be tied to the example used? If the left side of the room negated the opposite side of the room, then there would be no room.

Objectivity is a theoretically adoptable disposition that leads many to mistakenly believe that pretending to be on the outside looking in somehow cleanses them of the subjectivity inherent to being where they actually are; there is no outside.

We have no more reason to believe that natural laws exist than we have reason to believe gods or faeries exist — Millard J Melnyk

I agree. We have a habit of attaching labels to what we can not explain and then proceeding as if the label explains all.

The subconscious of course, transcendence of course, natural law of course. Buzz killers one and all.

I'm incorrigible, sorry. Imagine not acknowledging his supremacy. World's greatest Nazi, for sure. Philosophy's Fuhrer, as it were. — Ciceronianus

Heidegger was not a good person.

In division two, Heidegger moves on from average everydayness to talk about authentic angst and time. So even though what you say is true, once we have finished the book, we know about both inauthentic ( average everyday) and authentic Dasein. — Joshs

Heidegger does not equate average everydayness with inauthentic existence. Average everydayness is the context that allows Heidegger to explicate the structure of Dasein. A Dasein living inauthentically has the same structure as a Dasein living authentically. And even the authentically living Dasein lives most of its life in average everydayness. They wake up, fall out of bed, run a comb across their head. . .

And again and consistent with my original post, "finishing the book" only gets us through 2 parts of an incomplete 6 part project. Having an understanding of the average everydayness of being human and an understanding of what it means to live authentically does not get us to the goal described in what is mistakenly treated as an introduction to Being and Time, the meaning of being.

Heidegger said that people are the only creatures with a dasein that has a notion of its own dasein. — Raymond

I have not come across Heidegger ever saying that humans are the only beings with Dasein. And if it turned out that other beings had a Dasein, it would matter not to Heidegger. Either you recognize Heidegger's description of the average everydayness of human existence or you don't. If we recognize it, then Heidegger is correct. If we don't recognize it, then Heidegger is incorrect.

Dasein is far more than consciousness of consciousness. Dasein is easier grasped if understood as a structure within which one makes their way about in the world. Dasein is always in a mood, with a certain understanding, and moving forward in the world in a purposeful manner. And that is the structure of the average everydayness of human being.

How unfortunate. Do let us know when you find out. G'day. — Agent Smith

You can count on it. I only hope you will do the same.

Has he a general theory about caring? — Raymond

No. He does not have a general theory about caring. The German care does not have the same emotional and moral connotations as the English care. Again and for Heidegger, care is simply that which motivates and organizes your life. If you care about rocks, you might be well advised to become a geologist. What ever it is that you care about in whatever situation you find yourself is going to go a long way in explaining what you do and why you do it.

his writings are quite clear with great style — 180 Proof

I disagree.

I don't think that is an accurate interpretation of Heidegger. His concept of care has little to do with morality (perhaps like Heidegger himself?). Instead, I interpret his concept of care to be primarily rooted in the notion that what we do is rooted in what we care about in particular and not that we care in general. We do not organize our lives around caring in general. Instead, we organize our lives around what we care about in particular.

If one truly cares about white supremacy, then one will be a good Nazi.

Note N's prescient criticism sixty-something years before: — 180 Proof

I like Nietzsche. But he too is no slouch when it comes to offering up obscurity. Much of his reputation is built upon the notion that he must be profound because he is so hard to understand.

And you know that to be true.

And I make no claim to understanding Nietzsche in any significant way. Even though I know I have read far more Nietzsche than most people who pretend to understand him, any understanding I do have is rooted primarily in Kaufman's interpretations.

Being and time. How's Dasein connected to time? — Agent Smith

I have no answer to that question. I am generally confused by Division II of Being and Time.

I am not a big fan of Heidegger's writings per se. But I am a huge fan of Being and Time. And I also find interesting The Origin of the Work of Art. And his published lectures from the courses immediately preceding and following the publication of Being and Time are helpful. His essay on technology does make one think.

Heidegger was a despicable man in many ways and his political views and behavior are surely at the top of the list.

That having been said, any serious philosopher who rejected Heidegger's ontological views because of Heidegger's despicable politics is as much a fool as an engineer who rejected the engineering principles of SS Officer Wernher von Braun.

If you want to prosecute Heidegger, then by all means prosecute Heidegger. If you are looking for someone to defend Heidegger, I am not that someone. If ordered by a court to defend Heidegger, I would surrender my license to practice law.

If you are looking for someone to discuss the nature of being that Heidegger pushes, then I am most definitely such a someone.

I agree. However and so as not to be misquoted or taken out of context, the words you selected to put in quotation marks do not represent my views. Instead, they represent my interpretation of Heidegger's views with which I do not necessarily agree.

Though I am not convinced that all philosophy is quite as local as you suggest. In fact, I am quite confident that most of the early Greek philosophers considered themselves to be expounding more on being in general rather than Greek being in particular. Though you could be absolutely correct and they could all have been fooling themselves.

After all, human being is the being that questions being and that is true cross-culturally.

It is only the answers that vary between cultures.

And the answers are far less interesting than the questions.

interesting. In some respects, Heidegger made a living by maintaining that all of Western Philosophy went off the rails by misinterpreting the early Greek philosophers and that he (and he alone?) understood them correctly and could therefore put Western Philosophy back on track.

In find that sad in that his own ontological views stand quite well on their own and do not depend on everybody else being wrong.

I suggest Socrates would consider wisdom to be rooted in being aware of the limits of your knowledge rather than its extent.

I agree.

Dasein is the label Heidegger appropriates and attaches to that being whose mode of being is existence.

The Tao of Pooh.

I interpret Cartesian dualism as rooted in extended substance and thinking substance. And as always and given the absolute self sufficiency of the distinct substances, the issue always comes down to how do they interact. And after 400 years of Cartesianism, the answer is always transcendence. And of course transcendence always turns out to be a label we give to some sort of process we cannot explain. Isn't it wonderful?

We agree. However, one can be in search of a "vague" concept/idea - and not necessarily have a clear definition. — Don Wade

I agree. You and I could not even talk about truth (let alone define it) without having at least a vague and average understanding of truth.

In both pictures, women are covered from head to toe. Yet, one is considered the epitome of virtue and the other is seen as the very definition of oppression. — TheMadFool

depends upon who is doing the seeing. I suspect there are many Muslims (and some of them women) who believe their attire is the epitome of virtue.

Similarly, I suspect there are many non-theists who consider the habits worn by nuns to be oppressive symbols worn by those most likely raised in oppressive religious environments.

For the most part, I suspect both groups consider themselves to be virtuously attired.

Searching for truth is not the same as defining truth. How can one search for something they can't define? — Don Wade

and what if you don't see it because it doesn't fit your definition?

there is a wide range between having an idea of what you are in search of and having a clear definition of what you are in search of.

searching and defining is an interactive process.

unless you have already been there, you cannot be certain how it will look until you get there.

And why would you want to?

I question whether Nietzsche thought of "happiness" as a guiding determinant of action. I think righteousness would fit better with Nietzsche than happiness, i.e., the eternal affirmation of life is not outcome dependent.

so we can argue about stuff

didn't say it was necessarily true, did I? — Bartricks

You misunderstand.

I am simply pointing out that logic itself is premised upon what is known as the "law of non-contradiction", i.e., the law of non-contradiction is necessary to logical argument.

If you will live longer by rejecting the necessity of the law of non-contradiction to logical argument, then go for it.

I wish you nothing but the best.

How well can anyone define truth in philosophy - yet we still search for it. — Don Wade

Searching for truth is not the same as defining truth.

And defining truth is not the same as defining philosophy.

My point remains the same. I suspect your project would be more worthwhile if you let go of the mistaken belief that it's success depends upon a definition of philosophy.

It is your project, you solicited opinions, I provided mine, and I wish you nothing but success.

ok

I think that if a proposition is true, then it will not also be false.
You agree, I take it? — Bartricks

and that is called the law of non-contradiction. And it is necessary to your entire argument.

So you have refuted your own argument.

and that is called the law of non-contradiction. And it is necessary to your entire argument.

So you have refuted your own argument.

why

yes

a thousand variations on the ghost in the machine

There you go. Turns out you can. — Isaac

Excellent. :-)

your whole argument is premised upon the necessity of the law of non-contradiction.

Interesting idea though.

if you must first define philosophy before you can simulate philosophy, then you will define philosophy in such way that you can simulate philosophy. And then your computer will be unable to entertain any philosophical notions not contained within its definition. It is the classic garbage in/garbage out dilemma.

In a Kierkegaardian sense, the inherent dynamics of being (philosophy) are such that it will overflow any box (definition) in which you try to contain it.

There can be no philosophy if the definition of philosophy is not itself an issue for philosophy.

And does not the entire project rest upon the unstated presumption that a particular type of entity (human?) is uniquely situated to decide what is and what is not philosophy?

Interesting topic.