The question of the OP seems to be about the something v. nothing. This is scientific question and not a being question. — tim wood

seriously?

If science is not about the nature of being, then what is it about?

The province of science is to explain what it can explain, not to claim dominion over what it cannot explain.

And science is no more equipped to explain "nothingness" than is a spickledefork.

it is not so difficult to understand something from nothing once you accept that nothing does not mean what most people think it means. All measurements of being are by definition measurements of post bang being. Just as the tools for measuring light would return a reading of nothing when directed toward the darkness, so too would the tools for measuring post bang being return a reading of nothing when directed toward pre bang being.

not to mention, either the Philadelphia Eagles won the Superbowl or not so I guess there is a 50% probability that the did. Not exactly a solid statistical approach. Either it will snow in the Sahara tomorrow or it won't so I guess there is a 50% probability of snow in the Sahara tomorrow. There simply is no necessary connection between the probability of particular outcomes and the number of possible outcomes, at least when the number of possible outcomes is finite.

How does this work? What is it about my equating trivial decisions with decisions about a philosophical journey which prevents me from understanding your distinction? — Pseudonym

What is it about my distinction that you are having difficulty understanding?

Very true, and the fact that there is disagreement is very important to working through these ideas, and it's very important to not being bored. :nerd: — Sam26

:smile:

I believe you exaggerate the importance of language, — unenlightened

I agree. And that is true of most of us. Language is the articulation of an interpretation of an understanding rooted in the intelligibility of the world. You and your cat share the same understanding of what is in that cupboard.

if all interpretations fit what you were saying, the discussion would be over.:smile:

First and foremost, Heidegger would agree that medical attention is appropriate for some. But he is not talking about such people. Second and by way of clarification, Heidegger’s argument cannot be understood without grasping his distinction between fear on the one hand and dread(anxiety) on the other. And the reason he is making the distinction is to remove fear from the equation.

Fear is always related to an entity within the world whereas dread(anxiety) is never related to an entity within the world. And he only discusses fear to distinguish it from dread(anxiety). Dread(anxiety) is the issue of interest for him, not fear. Beyond that, it is an open question as to whether his concept of dread(anxiety) can be grasped without understanding his concept of world.

we go the way we are drawn
this is actually quite beautiful. Is this from somewhere or did you make this up? Either way, I like it.Reveal — mrnormal5150

It is mine. It is rooted in my interpretation of Heidegger's Being and Time.

I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make here. — Pseudonym

And you never will so long as you continue to equate trivial decisions such as flavors of ice cream with decisions regarding one's philosophical journey.

In addition and consistent with my previous comments, we do not make the number of decision during the course of a day as we think we do, let alone significant decisions. We spend most of our day on "auto pilot" when it comes to executing the decisions we have already made.

transcendence is from self to world, not from self to nothing.

for Heidegger, the language is different. For Heidegger it is world/not world rather than being/not being. And world is intelligible while not world is unintelligible. And our fears are always of something that is within the world. So using your term, is the not world/unitelligible that manifests as dread (anxieity). And I do think he hits the nail on the head with the "unintelligible" rather than nothing. Nothing is unintelligible. And that is why trying to talk about it results in "unitelligible" gibberish.

I am not certain I understand your question. I said it the way I I did for several reasons. First, I reject the notion that "it upsets us greatly we're going to die" explains all contemplation regarding the temporal nature of being. Second, I said it the way I did so as to avoid the inevitable language/logic pitfalls that come with treating "nothing" as if it were "something." And third and most important of all, I said it the way I did because I really do suspect that our first contemplation of the temporal nature of being (most likely as children) ends with "nothing" as shorthand for an incomprehensible outcome. Only thereafter does "nothing" as shorthand appear early in the conversation. For the most part, I think the brutality of our conclusions often belie the organic circumstances leading to their adoption. And it also makes their recurrence as issues easier to dismiss.

one does not need to live long before experiences gives rise to thoughts regarding the temporal nature of being. And such thoughts are pregnant with the indefinability of other than being. Or as Sartre would say, nothingness is a "worm in the heart of being."

so long as you continue to mistakenly presume we choose (adopt) our beliefs, you will mistakenly presume the next question is the basis upon which we make such a choice (adoption). We go the way we are drawn. Absent a counter-veiling draw, no choice is presented, no preference is selected.

it is matter of being born into an always already existing world. Most radical prolifers grow up into that world. How many baseball fans that grew up in Boston ever actually chose to Red Sox fans instead of Astro fans. Many of us are who we are before we ever even consider the possibility that we had a choice.

seriously? Not one in a thousand people would change their position on this issue if you could prove a fetus was or was not a person. This is simply not an issue amenable to empirical evidence. This is an issue of passion. Do you really believe these people are making a choice? They do not "buy into" any argument that is not already consistent with their belief. They did not choose their belief, they are their belief.

Have you considered the life and the paths we take do not unfold as your examples suggest? I suspect most radical pro lifers grew up into their beliefs long before they even entertained, if ever they did, the notion that they could believe what they preferred.

language is used to articulate an interpretation of an understanding rooted in the intelligibility of the world. As such, I suspect that any universal commonality, if any there be, is going to come somewhere between intelligibility and language.

According to the theory of evolution (TOE) traits that confer an advantage in the environment survive while those that are disadvantageous lead to extinction. All life-forms extant have been passed the test of survival. Am I right? — TheMadFool

So far. Do not presume that there are no further tests to come.

Having free will implies that we have the ability to choose over many options. With free will we can choose from the environment elements that are beneficial for our survival. In other words having free will is a survival advantage. — TheMadFool

Nothing to date suggests that the ability to choose inherently results in choosing that which is beneficial. And even if that were true on an individual level, can that really be extrapolated to a species?

And I also question the degree to which the colloquial understanding of evolution is still and your post is an excellent example. If free will is an evolutionary trait, then does not that in and of itself suggest that evolution after the age of free will may no longer be random, if it ever was?

Good post.

How do you differentiated ''draw'' and ''preference''? — TheMadFool

Why are you asking me the questions I asked you?

Please see my comment from three days ago.

You're right in a way but apply this idea to the very beginnings of every branch of philosophy and we realize that logic or reason (claimed bedrock of philosophy) has a small role to play if any. — TheMadFool

I have never claimed logic or reason to be the bedrock of philosophy. And if it is not, are you suggesting that preference would necessarily be the only other option? I still maintain that we are drawn in particular directions and absent some sort of competing draw, we go toward that which we are drawn. And that we do so with minimal, if any, deliberation.

those who feel most at home are those who accepted that it was not home.

thank you.

understood. And you may be right. I just do not want anyone to suggest that Arne thinks Heidegger would support your claim. As I have already noted, I have not yet read the Origin of the Work of Art and Heidegger's characterization of us as the "in-between" came later in his thought development and he did not explicate the term. Personally, I am excited by the possibility that the book might support your position. I am surprised that you are not. Good luck.

If you have no interest in the Origin of the Work of Art, then why are here? How would you even know if your apparently obvious claims have anything to do with the Origin of the Work of Art if you have not even read the book? I am simply suggesting that whether your claim (obvious or otherwise) is supported or not supported by the Origin of the Work of Art in any significant way cannot be known without reading the book. The apparent obviousness of your claim is hardly a justification for choosing not read any book?

Eye and Mind — StreetlightX

thanks. Just found it. Will read it today. But I have been reading Heidegger for years and his failure to address the body is a gaping hole in his ontology and as a result POP has been near the top of my list for quite some time. The fact that it is difficult reading is why I was hoping to drum up interest in a group reading. Perhaps you would be interested in joining the group or providing input/guidance? If you had some advice on how to lay out a reading schedule or any sort of other logistic advice, I would greatly appreciate if you sent me a message.

I have not read the book and there is nothing anyone has said that supports you use of the words "therefore" followed by "must". But there have been no premises advanced upon which to even claim "therefore." Perhaps you brought them with you?

you may be right. Have you read the book? I would like to read the book. I have been unable to find an electronic copy. I may have to go to the library.

have you read the book? I would like to read the book. I am unable to find an electronic copy. I guess I can go to the library.

We are not agents experiencing a work of art.

We are the experience of the work. — Arne
Then that must therefore hold true for experience generally - of life generally. — raza

Are you familiar with the Phenomenology of Perception by Merleau-Ponty. Not only does it fill in the huge perceptions gaps in Heidegger's philosophy, it was written for that purpose. Please advise if you would be interested in a reading/discussion group on Phenomenology of Perception.

Yes. What is Red? Where is Red? When we know Red and find Red we will have solved the Hard Problem of Consciousness, not just for Red but for all Conscious Experience. — SteveKlinko

I do not know.

Perhaps the great mystery of the location of red will some day be resolved and we can stop losing sleep over it.

It is simply not an issue I find intriguing at this point in time.

Good luck finding the location of red and if you do find it, could you take a look around for blue? Blue is my favorite color.

:smile:

Then that must therefore hold true for experience generally - of life generally. — raza

That could be.

But the subject matter of the book is the Origin of the Work of Art.

In addition, I will reiterate that Heidegger was educated in mathematics and physics and his philosophy from beginning to end is markedly void of explanations regarding perceptions.

And his use of the term "in-between" was nothing he expounded upon in any systematic way. It was simply a term he began to use more in his later thoughts.

So even though I agree with the idea you advance, "that must therefore hold true" strikes me as too strong a claim.

To put it more succinctly, the question would be whether there are any electrons there, or just clouds, without the human act of individuation, which distinguishes individual electrons. — Metaphysician Undercover

Or even clouds.

I didn't raise any language issue. A bunch of posts back somebody made the claim that if we could just "Get the Language Right" then the Hard Problem would go away. — SteveKlinko

So I am mistaken about who raised the issue.

Why would that matter?

My comments were about the language.

I took no position regarding the location of the color red.

I am sure will find it.

The only thing that would make me hesitate is not wishing to detract from the Heidegger and Wittgenstein reading groups. — John Doe

Got it.

I am confident I know Heidegger well enough.

And my reading of Merleau-Ponty is long overdue.

Should it develop, I am confident we can work it out.

I'm working on a dissertation heavily focused on Merleau-Ponty. — John Doe

The cavalry has arrived.

have you read Merleau-Ponty? A woman from Greece needs assistance in understanding the sensory gaps left in Being and Time. I have offered to read the Phenomenology of Perception with her. Whether you have read it or not, please join the discussion at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3611/on-heideggers-the-origin-of-the-work-of-art-and-aesthetics

It makes sense and I agree.

We all have our strengths and weaknesses.

Heidegger was educated as a mathematician and a physicist.

The person who fills in the sensory gap you have identified is Maurice Merleau-Ponty.

His magnum opus is the Phenomenology of Perception.

Not only does the Phenomenology of Perception fill in the gap you have identified, it was written for that very purpose.

I have not read it.

It is on my reading list.

If you would wish to read it together, I can move it to the top of my list.

If you have not already figured it out, I am a Heideggerian and my failure to read Mr. Merleau-Ponty has been bothering me for quite some time.

Do we not feel the world as unheimlich precisely because we could lose it, and thus lose ourselves, at any moment? And on the other hand whenever choices are made are we not "being towards death" in the sense that we feel the death of all the possibilities that become closed off due to choice, and the existential dread that comes with that? — Janus

Indeed.

And therein is the essence of the ironic nature of this matter.

My dog. He is only about twelve pounds. But ounce for ounce, he would be the world champion of snoring canines.