If God can commit suicide, then all good can leave reality

As I am starting to understand, science is about mathematical correlations between objects and the dividing up of objects to find what is inside. But perhaps the whole is prior to its parts. My room has a bed, pictures, and books. I can't say I have "electrons" in my room with the same, first level, understanding of what that place represents

If God can do anything, he can kill himself? Is this a sin for him?

I think that science studies beings, not Being or Time in their most real sense

I actually bought that book for a friend and now I think I want to borrow it lol. Heidegger wrote in a tradition that does talk about ethics, so I think you're right. For me the best part of his philosophy is the implicit concept that science describes a second order aspect of the world while philosophy describes the primary way it must be seen

Subjective idealism: all is thought

Objective idealism: consciousness creates matter (even its own body)

Now I think one has to be careful with materialism. If we are not subtle, we will find that we are all homeless according to the material proposition. If the walls of my house are just infinite electrons appearing and disappearing as the space it is in changes constantly and ridiculously fast as earth circles the sun, then I do not have a physical home. Modern philosophy has many tools to try to see this, however, in the proper light

And your being creepy for always bringing up a previous discussion. I've read the works, got the dates of them mixed up, and forgot there was a 6th section to one. Ive probably read more Descartes than you. You assume meaningful consciousness can't come from matter. It must be frustrating that you can't refute it. This is a good time to examine your own motives

All Descartes arguments are digestions of the same line of argument. And your argument is the resulting poop. Nothing new, same old smell

And Descartes had two arguments for God and one for the soul. Your trying to use them in a new way but it's the same old stuff

If matter randomly forms into an organism, then meaningful thoughts can arise from this matter because it has a brain. That's the obvious answer to what you've argued. You don't think matter can do this and invoke something incorporeal to explain it. I question your distinction between matter and spirit and that you know what matter truly is.

You've clearly plagiarized Descartes arguments

All you've said is meaning can't spring from matter. Yet not you nor anyone else knows what matter is ontologically. You can't rule out meaning coming from it alone

I don't see how you have any unique argument on this question. It's the same old "matter must be designed to produce consciousness" without actually providing a proof for this premise because there isn't any. Many of us have seen your argument many many times

Interestingly, we know ourselves as conscious and spiritual at least in leaning and learn more about matter as we grow up from childhood. "When, in taking care of things, one lets something be in relevance, one's doing is so grounded in temporality and amounts to an altogether pre-ontological and unthematic way of thinking" wrote Heidegger. Our preconscious knows nothing of matter and understandings of the brain producing consciousness are practical and thematic

You analyze the conscious mind and conclude it can't come with its a priori thoughts straight from matter. But it doesn't! You have to think subconsciously in order to latter think consciously. This is what sleep is about. And we can't really say what a subconscious mind can or can not do

I think Bartricks is saying "let's imagine the first two evolved members of mammals. How can they talk to each other? They don't have a languages programmed by God". To which the answer is "in the biology is intuition on how to properly communicate"

Interesting. Ye is spiritual a continuum from matter or discretely different. How can we know

Dewey position appears to lend itself to materialism and it was this that Heidegger wanted to avoid.

I once got one of his books from the library. Dewey sounds very interesting but I didn't get through the whole book before i needed to return it.

But Pragmatism says we know things only in a practical way. The practical, the cultural, and the social are primary. That's how I understand it. Russell thought some things were always true. It's a tricky subject

The paradox seems like Zeno

Heidegger started his career a dozen years before the Nazis took power. It was a good philosophy and his latter philosophy flowed from it, not from his personal decisions in the 30's

Dewey sounds arrogant

An agent that designs the world is a description of God

Husserl sounds awesome! It is as if we know experience, willing, and thinking first and then subsequently figure that it comes from the brain, but the knowledge of our actions is prior too and primary over any knowledge of brains and matter and so any materialism in our belief would be a posterior encountering of the world and can never answer to full question of what we are *for us* because we have always encountered ourselves before any ensembly of scientific facts about us

Even my philosopher teacher in college had a lot of trouble reading Heidegger I think. His long sentences are well crafted but take some stamina to get through. We who can read it have a certain gift I guess.

But on Heidegger himself, it's seeming to me that he puts activity prior to substance. If this is true it radically changes the position of materialism. It is not matter that acts, but action as a substantial verb encountering a world of matter

We are discussing his work from the 20's

That does makes sense, I like that. Maybe *time* is the haze that *being enters* where it no longer knows what is at hand but simply knows the activity as an ontological subject in its own right (and man is then time)

To my eyes Heidegger's ontic is dualistic (me and a hammer) but his ontology is not so, and is even onto-theological in a sense. If you have more on how Dasein understands itself as not separate from matter but not lost in the ocean of matter i'd be interested. The next books I wanted to read from him are his essays on Heraclitus and Parmenides. You clearly have read a lot of Heidegger

That helps me. Thanks :)

I get what you are saying. However a point has no dimensions, so how can it have any relation to space except as a limit. An infinitesimal is what comes closest to zero but that's an infinite region and is infinite. Infinite infinities equal finite space? How?

I got a line from Heidegger: "We can this further clarify the temporality of taking care if we pay attention to the modes of circumspectly letting something be encountered that were characterized before as conspicuousness, obstructiveness, and obstinacy."

The self is open, closed, and resistant to non-existence as is inanimate objects.

Bartricks is saying we can know an agent is behind the world. But God is unknowable. Bartricks is saying we need to believe in God in a literal obnoxious way but people who are open to possibilities will say they are atheists and don't believe in proof of God but could possibly be true believers of whatever is beyond thought. Who can say for sure whether they are believers or not

If there is an agent behind the world, we are it. You don't seem to have read any phenomenology and understand it. If there is a higher being, than he always had this state. We have this state actually, knowing eternally from all consciousness. But it's build on matter. People who think they are fairies are not wise

I mentally divide objects though. I don't think if this is intuition or imagination, but flexing the segment infinitely than bringing it back like a slinky to the finite aspect of the segment, which certainly seems to require an extra thought in logic in order to accomplish because the slinky would stretch to infinity in both directions

I see a point\infinitesimal as like a hole with a duplicate hole in it that 1) is the first one 2) but reverts back the the whole making the formation of the single finite object. Otherwise we have something finite made of infinite parts

Well as I've mentioned to you before, I don't see how you can slice through a geometric object forever, creating infinite little pieces that keep dividing, while the whole remains finite

Material things can't make meaning unless consciousness emerges first. A book means nothing whether made by a man or not unless consciousness is immanent in the reader

The understanding I presented of Heidegger on this thread was that the world is material but Time (or Spirit) encircles everything and the world and our action is an action of care on part of something transcendental. I guess this was just my impression, but Heidegger does vaguely speak about transcendence

What type of being does Man understand? The material world? I haven't seen where Heidegger explicitly denies this, although he focuses on hammering for example instead of hammers. Also, do you believe Heidegger is saying more than Aristotle and Augustine in putting time in the soul of Dasein?

Being must be defined as "care".

The phenomenon of care in its totality is essentially something that cannot be tom asunder; so any attempts to trace it back to special acts or drives like willing and wishing or urge and addiction, or to construct it out of these, will be unsuccessful. — waarala

But any human willing can be torn asunder. The only thing that can't be torn asunder is matter which can't be created or destroyed. So care would be the substance of the world which holds us in existence and allows us to care, love, and will. That's where I'm at at this point in the discussion.

how has Heidegger radicalized the concept of time so that it can be understood as heedful circumspective relevance? — Joshs

Heidegger says the present arises from and is held up by the future because the future is the past. He doesn't see time as a succession of moments. He says "Time makes itself time as a future that makes the present temporal". Now I just wanted to point out that I think he was highly influenced by Einstein on this.

I read it more as: Man, who understands being, is time. — Xtrix

I like where this is going. Is man time or being?