First, I do not understand what you mean when you say it is not necessarily Heidegger's claim. Whose claim is it. — Arne

Ugh, you’re gonna make me pull out B/T aren’t you? :lol:

The prior paragraph he’s talking about how being is prevalently understood, and how it’s therefore not totally unfamiliar to us. It’s the “vague average understanding” of being. He also says that we can’t yet give a clarification of the meaning of being just yet.

In this context, when he refers to being as “that which determines entities as entities,” he may be referring to this average understanding which we are all familiar with. He’s also trying to make clear that being is itself not an entity, although we have to interrogate an entity (us) to learn about it.

In this context, I think it’s much more likely that this sentence wasn’t meant as a serious definition. That would be quite weird, given the entire book is about it. To answer it with a casual aside is unlikely.

since Being and Time is about laying out the structure of being rather than defining being, the definition offered is hardly the final word. Instead, the structure is the final word. — Arne

I don’t buy this idea of structure. He’s quite clear that the question is the meaning of being. Says it over and over again. I’m not sure where he says anything about the “structure of being.”

Because I’m not able to get at an online version right now, I’ll leave you with this photo from my book as evidence:

I think that Heidegger remained open to and accepting of what comes to be because he retained belief in the notion of providence. — Fooloso4

I don’t recall Heidegger ever talking about, let alone believing in, the notion of providence.

Rather than a supreme being he says that God is the ground of being. — Fooloso4

Yes— Tillich does. Not Heidegger. So I’m still not sure why you’re convinced he sees being as God.

I think the closest we can say about Heidegger’s view of being is that it is very much related to time (in the sense of temporality) and aletheia. But that’s not saying much, of course. So it goes.

I don't think he ever is honest enough to come out and say it. Being is God. — Fooloso4

I don’t see that. He’s pretty clearly un-Christian. He says in a number of places that god as uncreated substance is simply more substance ontology, and that Christians can’t do philosophy almost by definition.

But who knows.

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.

For Heidegger consideration of the good is replaced with the call of conscience. The call of conscience is not about what is good or bad, it is the call for authenticity. Its primary concern is not oneself or others but Being. He sees Plato's elevation of the Good above being, that is, as the source of both being and being known, as a move away from, a forgetting of Being. — Fooloso4

I’ve almost never been impressed by attempts to explain Heidegger’s notions of conscience or authenticity, and this is no exception. To determine if it’s even approaching truth would require some clear quotations from the texts and a lot of analysis. Probably not worth it.

But statements like “[The call of conscience]’s primary concern is not oneself or others but being” has absolutely no meaning to me. It may be said that thinkers (in the sense of philosophers) “think being,” or are primarily concerned with existence itself. I see that. But as for what being is? Heidegger, as far as I’ve seen, never really says. That’s worth remembering before we go on making connections between being and conscience or authenticity.

Mr. DeSantis has honed an agenda that attacks progressive orthodoxies where they are most likely to affect and annoy conservative elites: gay and trans inclusion in suburban schools, diversity and equity in corporate bureaucracies, Black studies in A.P. classes and universities. None of these issues have any appreciable impact on the opportunities afforded to working-class people. And yet conservative elites treat it as an article of faith that these issues will motivate the average Republican voter.

The conservative movement has staked its viability on the belief that Americans resent liberal elites because they’re “woke” and not because they wield so much power over other people’s lives. Their promise to replace the progressive elite with a conservative one — with men like Ron DeSantis — is premised on the idea that Americans are comfortable with the notion that only certain men are fit to rule.

Mr. Trump, despite what he sometimes represents, is no more likely than Mr. DeSantis to disrupt the American oligarchy. (As president, he largely let the plutocrats in his cabinet run the country.)

Few politicians on either side appear eager to unleash — rather than contain — America’s leveling spirit, to give every American the means and not merely the right to rule themselves.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/10/opinion/trump-feud-ron-desantis.html?unlocked_article_code=SiN4KOS05wzoE-zRiB4tCndC8Y4VT0L-xYpQ4aQmsueCtVMCAHPk-_0sRtLQ4etTj8LuuRUBIn_Ja7u9-KPcfljTX4b4kunJwW0gqeIMfulSiOpxyTZx3bIIMUSjW1OG4zjjWJNpmEV2Du-xuVE3G1sKY9Ff-KvJ3qtspBY_2OX9U4IIgBgvSN5Z2PqFTtZRV_czxs5N41yX6VZi2XTk6LSuEkUaw3B0L1dTTRBJQTt_hdINERMmR25S_t_Bh-48DrusQejDdNmXOqOMbzsrXX_7fxx5P9aCshYJnwkRJtAAHB-Nki4AHXUer6hUgWrEUzZDOJk-tUMB0-QE-1a9QWY&smid=url-share

Have you looked at Braver's Groundless Grounds ? — plaque flag

I haven’t. I’ll look it up.

I don't think God is such a concept — Jamal

God isn’t equivocal?

Is “define your terms!” always or often or ever a legitimate imperative? — Jamal

Count me in the group that thinks it’s often very important. Countless useless digressions could be avoided if we were clearer about what we mean.

This doesn’t necessarily imply we have to come up with a precise, technical term for everything, but there are times when one assumes the other person knows what they mean, and it sets the stage for absurdities.

Two examples: “God” and “capitalism.”

An easy decision. An adolescent style of rigidity and dogmatism. Thought everything fit nicely into a flowchart. Constantly uncharitable, frequently insulting.

I do think the later Wittgenstein is compatible — plaque flag

Wittgenstein has some similarities, especially in terms of “average everydayness,” but I see little similarity with Heidegger’s conception of being-in-the-world.

I'm a bit surprised to see Hume on the list. — plaque flag

I wouldn’t pay attention to it. Regarding in-der-Welt-sein, there’s some evidence of similarities with Daoism. That’s about it.

:clap:

Great post.

Then why talk like a mystic? There are reasons (and causes) for meditating, for philosophizing, etc. To claim otherwise, and then citing Russell, is just playing games.

I’ll ignore your hysterics. Next time take some responsibility and argue better, and clearer.

But I have to admit that sometimes it feels as if it is. — Fooloso4

Sure. I know people often talk about how when they’re “in the zone,” it feels like they’re not in control, etc.



:up: You’re probably right.

Follows its own instinct
Guided by natural line, — Cutting up an Ox - Thomas Merton Version

So we’re replacing “plans and intentions” with “instinct and natural line,” etc. Fine.

When I first started playing guitar, I needed to think about what I was doing and where my fingers went, etc. After years of playing, I don’t have to do that any more.

So guitar playing is now…supernatural? Beyond all understanding? Causeless? Influence-less? Done for no reason and without any motivation? I start playing, and have no memory of how or why I picked it up— I just play. Come on.

This really must be word games. Use whatever word you think is better, but let’s not descend into the nonsense.

The old Heidegger example: If I enter a room, I have to turn the doorknob— but I don’t try to turn the doorknob, have beliefs about it, have memory of it. All I know is that here I am, and I must have done it. Is this wu wei? Maybe — I think of it as more to do with skill, but it’s in the same ballpark. Unconscious or non-conscious skilled activity, of which there are many examples in life.

Analysis of habits lends plenty of evidence to the idea of non-theoretical types of behavior as well.

So I’m a firm believer in stuff like this. And meditation. But again — we don’t have to pretend that it’s magic to talk about it.

Here's what one noted mystic had to say in 1912: — T Clark

Russell isn’t saying actions have no cause either. Because such a view is frankly incoherent. He’s making very specific criticisms of things which I’m not claiming.

I am far from denying that there may be such sequences which in fact never do fail. It may be that there will never be an exception to the rule that when a stone of more than a certain mass, moving with more than a certain velocity, comes in contact with a pane of glass of less than a certain thickness, the glass breaks. I also do not deny that the observation of such regularities, even when they are not without exceptions, is useful in the infancy of a science: the observation that unsupported bodies in air usually fall was a stage on the way to the law of gravitation. What I deny is that science assumes the existence of invariable uniformities of sequence of this kind, or that it aims at discovering them.

I’m not arguing for anything like that.

Call them reasons, determinants, or whatever you like.

True, some actions could be magic. But that really is mysticism. I think it’s a misunderstanding of eastern thought, and as I see it happens frequently. In the same way that new agers latch on to quantum mechanics.

Imagine thinking that philosophy follows a recipe conjured in the mind of some internet guy, and that everything not conforming to it is “pseudo philosophy.”

The forum attracts egomaniacs of all kinds. You can tell they’ve spent too much time alone, their ideas (so called) completely un-scrutinized for too long.

It’s funny to watch these homegrown ramblings have a head-on collision with the outside social world. Speaks to the power and importance of peer review.

:up:

Yes, I do think there are uncaused actions, both in the world at large and in my personal behavior. In Taoism, the philosophy I feel most at home in, the idea of "wu wei," acting without acting, without intention, without purpose, is central to the teachings. — T Clark

Yeah, if wu wei requires that we abandon the law of causality, it really is woowoo. I don’t interpret it that way— I see it as a kind of “flow” situation.

But yes, if you think there are actions which have “no cause,” then I don’t see how we can continue.

Reality, existence, consciousness, and many other things have no clear definition or "technical notions". Still... — Eugen

“Still” we go on babbling about them, getting nowhere.

There’s a new article on this site every other week about consciousness or some grand unifying theory of existence, and they all make the same mistake: if only we define a word this way or that, it’ll “solve” the mystery and everything will fall into place.

It’s a silly waste of time.

Chomsky’s really not a mystic or “mysterian.”

He’s saying there’s not been a technical notion of matter/material since the 17th century, so the mind/body problem can’t be answered (since we don’t know what “body” is).

There do seem to be some mysteries in the world. Either they will be discovered one day, or will be something like how rats simply can’t run a prime number maze— some things are just beyond the scope of human beings. History gives us some clue as to which is which.

It continues to beggar belief, that when it comes to Donald J Trump otherwise sensible people consistently lose their ethical compass. — yebiga

Exactly. You being a prime example.

As no felony is stipulated in the indictment — yebiga

His indictment consists of 34 felony charges, — Benkei

The New York prosecutors performed legal gymnastics to pretzel the misdemeanor counts into felonies — yebiga

But nice speech.

Much hatred in politics seems to me to be confected hatred, generated by millionaire commentators ensconced in corporate media who have an interest in fueling the fires of prejudice and bigotry to enhance ratings and generate cash. — Tom Storm

:up: :up:

It's not contradictory and it's not wrong, not for me at least. — T Clark

You wouldn’t say that your philosophizing is an uncaused action, right? It has its causes and reasons. I would say it has even (non-theoretical) goals— like everything else. Despite how it may feel. Its a bit teleological perhaps, but nevertheless true — in my view.

When I sit around, I can claim I’m doing “nothing.” It may even feel that way. But that’s really not true. It’s not nothing— it’s something. Of course it is. It’s also a kind of (perhaps subconscious) choice to sit there rather than doing anything else.

I don’t see how it’s possible to act without any purpose or reason— with the major caveat that it doesn’t have to be consciously known to the actor and doesn’t have to be an explicit “goal” or destination. Animals act purposefully and for known reasons, even if they don’t know it.

So finding yourself some place may not be your desired destination, but something got you there: a series of choices and actions. Just because it’s not where you want to be doesn’t negate that you’re trying to get somewhere.

I may have no plan for my day, but I get up and have coffee and take a shower. None of these actions were planned or explicitly thought out. Mostly it’s out of the habit of routine. Does that mean they’re without purpose?

Also, hey --- this website! Kind of. Maybe? — Moliere

You know what's funny? I hadn't even thought of this forum as being a kind of "pop philosophy" thing. But I guess there's a decent argument for that classification.

It is true that a lot of it is garbage, but then again, so is a lot of traditional and academic philosophy. — Fooloso4

:up:

When we started to professionalize and mathematicize philosophy, especially in the late 19th century, it was the beginning of the end. Which is why it's worth going back to the Greeks, over and over again.

An unpopular opinion of mine: you're not truly an educated Western citizen unless and until you know Greek and Latin.

Like you're saying, philosophy can open one's eyes. To what and why? For what purpose? — Noble Dust

Good question.

For no purpose. Because I'm curious. Because I have a drive for self-awareness. It's not a goal I'm striving for, it's a force that's pushing me, where I don't know and I don't really care. It's an engine, not a steering wheel. — T Clark

Being curious is a reason, and the purpose is to learn something, or understand, or "see," etc. There's no way around wanting something -- even many Buddhists acknowledge that. You want to free yourself from suffering and attachment, for example. If you didn't, you wouldn't be meditating.

I never bought the claim that we do some things for no purpose whatsoever. We're pushing into a future, and while we may not consciously have a goal in mind, there's certainly a purpose to be found in everything we do. I don't see a way around it. Happy to have my mind changed though.

This isn't to suggest that "doing" philosophy (whatever that means exactly) has to be a means to some other conventional end, like making more money or learning how to be more confident (plenty of self-help books to that end) -- but to say there's no purpose in itself is contradictory.

Might be all I am to them, but it's not all I am. — Michael

Good point. I assumed that's what he meant, but now I look at it and it isn't that clear even with the context put in.

I take him to mean something similar to Durant's take on Aristotle: "You are what you do." There's definitely something in that. Actions speak much louder than words, or in this case thoughts and feelings. "Job" in the sense of employment isn't what's meant, of course, but more in the sense of what you do with most of your time.

Or perhaps I'm giving this dude more credit than he deserves.

Well it’s failed.

No— looks good. “They say geniuses pick green.”

Absolutely. A fine example.

I like it. Very Irish.

Give me a guy who reads nothing but pop philosophy books and who is healthy, happy, creative and productive over one who has spent his time reading the complete works of Kant and endlessly examining his life any day.

Most people probably shouldn’t question things, and are better off in not doing so. Of those who do, let their actions speak for its value. (In my experience, usually very little.)

Pop philosophy is about self-improvement. Real philosophy is about self-examination. — T Clark

Nah. But if true, then fuck “real” philosophy anyway.



:up:

because you say, “I'd prefer my nephew (and anyone, really) read direct sources,” you’re an elitist but not a snob. — Jamal

It’s a fine line to walk, let me tell you.

I think the crucial difference is that pop philosophy, unlike secondary literature, is often dumbed down, written to please people or to catch the attention or to sell books, not to enlighten or teach. — Jamal

Agreed. But when it’s done well, it can pique a person’s interest.

In my own experience, pop philosophy/psychology books were very helpful as a kid and made me curious about the direct sources. I see articles like the one in the OP similarly— the difference being I’m more “elitist” now, do I have to counter the instinct to look down my nose.

It's the same place where e.g. Musak, juice bars and horoscopes belong. — 180 Proof

Eh, I wouldn’t go that far.

Same as sugar. — 180 Proof

Better. :up:

All I'm saying is that there can be interesting philosophical/psychological and ethical matters that could be discussed absent specific figure X. — Manuel

Surely— and often are. In the specific case of the Matrix, the source was obvious. But if you take, say, a Kurosawa film, the influences may be there (Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Balzac) but are not that obvious.

I like the coffee analogy.

Mindfulness comes up a lot, as does stoicism. — Tom Storm

Yeah I definitely see mindfulness going "mainstream" the last decade or so. Even prior to that, in the 90s, I remember reading the top selling books of the week for nonfiction and it was usually "Who Moved my Cheese" and "Don't Sweat the Small Stuff" and the like. (I remember like the latter when I read it -- but it's really a re-wording of a lot of buddhist principles.) Things haven't changed too much from then. Now it's a lot of stuff about habits and time management.

A lot of it coincides with pop psychology, of course.

Robert Hughes — Tom Storm

Nice.

Is snobbery or elitism always bad? — Tom Storm

It's a good question. Having good taste isn't bad -- but probably being a snob is.

It's a delicate issue. I think there are pop tv-series, movies and maybe even games, that certainly have quite interesting philosophical concepts and art is often the most direct way to expose complex ideas pertaining to mood, insight, looking at persons thinking process and so on. — Manuel

Yeah, I mean one thing that comes to mind is The Matrix. That's had a lasting impact. All along it's just the brain in the vat thought experiment, itself an iteration of Descartes. A lot of fun -- but more worthwhile than actually reading Descartes? I'm inclined to say no.

There's a lot going on today (April 4th, 2023) in the United States and elsewhere. I feel the need to summarize it all in one place, so here it is:

* Finland joined NATO.
* Donald Trump is being arraigned in New York city.
* Wisconsin's Supreme Court is up for grabs (will have a major impact on abortion, gerrymandering, and elections in a swing state).
* Chicago is electing a new mayor (also has ramifications far beyond the borders of the city).

This is for posterity. Will be interesting to look back in a few years and see how consequential (or not) each of these events were.

I’m sorry I missed this course. Seems interesting indeed. I meant to join, but life happens.

I haven’t read through the entire thread, but does he mention anything about the ruling class ideas? On his podcast he talks about this in relation to the Grundrisse. Very interesting.

Translation: Collectivism bad; Fascism good. :up:

First of all they have PhD's (doctor of philosophy) so technically they all are philosophers. — Nickolasgaspar

:rofl:

Bye.

You seem to be simply naming people you’re familiar with. Haidt and Zimbardo aren’t philosophers. Neither is Sean Caroll or Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking, just to name a few. If we’re considering anyone we like to be philosophers, then “philosopher” becomes relatively meaningless.

Some of the people you mentioned are considered philosophers — like John Searle — but as I mentioned before, I see them as mostly academics and fail to see any real contribution. May be good teachers— but that’s different.