But while you seem to think it is somehow to be done prior to philosophising — Banno

No, in my view philosophy is a kind of thinking, which is a human activity. It does indeed consist of questions, but they are not limited to "clarifying" words -- a belief which is an outgrowth of science and mathematics. Because they've been successful in many ways, this has come to dominate what constitutes "philosophy." You see it as an improvement, but it's simply another ontology. A powerful one, no doubt -- but restricts "philosophy" to the narrow questions of logic and language. But the philosophy of language isn't philosophy. I think we need to grow out of that and return, as you mentioned, to the Greeks. You see Socrates as being interested mostly in "clarification," I see him as simply one who was willing to question.

The question of questions, of course, is the one in this thread.

Yes, let's reduce philosophy to "clarifying" terms. Amazing how science and academia has influenced how philosophy is thought about these days.

What a pity.

Philosophy is about clarifying concepts — Banno

Says who? Pretty strange to reduce philosophy to this. Try thinking outside the analytic tradition.

To know what "being" is is to know what is referred to with "being". But when the uses of "being" are distinctly divergent, then no amount of endless analysis of use will determine what "being" is. The word refers to distinct things (or conceptions). Then we must turn to something other than use (which only leads us into confusion), to determine what being is. And in this sense Banno is clearly incorrect — Metaphysician Undercover

The OP is about the question, "What is being?"

When we say, in our modern world, that everything consists of forces acting on matter, as in the field of physics, then this is one possible answer. It determines what things are, and implies an interpretation of being -- in this case, ultimately a naturalistic/materialist ontological view (being = material, substance, the empirical, etc).

By asking the question I'm not necessarily looking for a definition, any more than I'd ask "What is God?" Many different definitions and interpretations of that word as well, represented by many sects of Christianity.

Rather, we're asking "Whereon is every answer to the question about beings based?" This is similar to the Kantian move, because the answer is basically the same: human beings. But Kant's conception of being, human being, and time, are still all within a Cartesian and Aristotelian framework -- one with a particular view about "truth," a deep concern for epistemology, and a modification of dualism of the world as "subject and object," where objects become representations for the subject.

Where Heidegger is interesting here is in the same way as Nietzsche is interesting when discussing values and morality. He's going beyond the tradition, questioning things that have been either forbidden to question, taken as self-evident, or totally forgotten altogether (as "God" was at one point).

So I'm not looking for a definition, really -- I'm looking into how we've interpreted being (and most importantly ourselves) in the ways in which we have, and why. Can we ask this question without already imposing an ontological interpretation? Can we look at things anew? That's the purpose.

Why not just say Time isn’t something we can readily atomise? The ‘Now’ is merely a way of framing time appreciation just like a second is a measure of physical time a ‘moment’ is merely a human reference to unregulated and vague demarcation of felt time. — I like sushi

That’s fine, but it’s not that we can’t atomize it— we can and do. It’s that we don’t want to mistake this for “lived” or “felt” time.

You’ve tried to define dasein before and failed. Not surprising as Heidegger failed too. That is my point. — I like sushi

Dasein is temporality. I can't be more concise than that. If that's a failure, then indeed his entire project is a failure. But explain to me where it fails.

It's saying something very similar to Kant, in my view. Where Heidegger thinks Kant failed was in (1) not asking about our being and (2) in still holding to a traditional view of time.

Personally , I don’t need to know the meaning of being in general, although I believe that it is closely linked with temporality, as his 1962 book, On Time and Being suggests. I am satisfied with knowing Dasein’s kind of being ( the ontological difference , the in-between , happening , occurrence , the ‘as’ structure , projection). — Joshs

Dasein is temporality. Being "here" (da-sein) is being the present moment, but only if we don't define the present exclusively as a present-at-hand now-point (that is, thought abstractly) -- but instead as the experience from which all time tenses arise. That's my understanding. So dasein (its being) is temporality, and dasein is the being that cares about, questions, and interprets being.

I think the quote below justifies the views above.

We have already intimated that Dasein has a pre-ontological Being as its ontically constitutive state. Dasein is in such a way as to be something which understands something like Being. Keeping this inter­ connection firmly in mind, we shall show that whenever Dasein tacitly understands and interprets something like Being, it does so with time as its standpoint. Time must be brought to light-and genuinely conceived-as the horizon for all understanding of Being and for anyway of interpreting it. In order for us to discern this, time needs to be explicated primordially as the horizon for the understanding of Being, and in terms of temporality as the Being of Dasein, which understands Being.

B&T, p. 39 (18) Macquarrie/Robinson translation -- emphasis is Heidegger's.

I also find it tiresome when I’m told he makes more sense when you’ve read his earlier work. If so why can’t anyone explain what he meant? — I like sushi

I have done so multiple times. I'm happy to do so again -- I'll even give references. I'm also interested in criticism -- because maybe there's something I've missed. But when you or others come to this thread with conventional views about Heidegger, which in my view amounts to little more than a dismissive hand wave, and want to post nothing more than your feelings about his often unclear and difficult style, there's very little I can do with that.

With regard to the awkwardness and 'inelegance' of expression in the analyses to come, we may remark that it is one thing to give a report in which we tell about entities, but another to grasp entities in their Being. For the latter task we lack not only most of the words but, above all, the 'grammar'. If we may allude to some earlier researchers on the analysis of Being, incomparable on their own level, we may compare the onto­logical sections of Plato's Parmenides or the fourth chapter of the seventh book of Aristotle's Metaphysics with a narrative section from Thucydides; we can then see the altogether unprecedented character of those formulations which were imposed upon the Greeks by their philosophers. And where our powers are essentially weaker, and where moreover the area of Being to be disclosed is ontologically far more difficult than that which was presented to the Greeks, the harshness of our expression will be enhanced, and so will the minuteness of detail with which our concepts are formed.

-- Heidegger himself, emphasis mine

notice that the account of being given in the tradition of Frege, Russell, Quine and so on does not depend on time.
— Banno

This is like saying it doesn’t depend on human being. But Frege and Russell were indeed human beings. — Xtrix

This is like saying it doesn't depend on German, but both Husserl and Heidegger arranged their arguments in German. — Banno

An account of being doesn't depend on German either, it depends on the human being -- and Frege, Russell, and Quine were human beings.

The world as always already interpreted should not be conflated with the world as already named in my view. Meaning is not an artifact or "after-fact" of language; meaning is also pre-linguistic and is what makes language possible in the first place. — Janus

Well said. :clap:

I would invoke an analogy to perception at this point, but perhaps that’s not helpful in this context.

But I’m iffy on whether abstractions are things — Srap Tasmaner

What else would they be? Are they nothing? If they’re not nothing, then they’re “in” being along with everything else— clouds, feelings, sound, force, Bach’s fugues and strawberry candles.

But you have to say a lot more than, for instance, “Santa Claus exists — as an idea,” or something like that. An idea of what? Not of a person. — Srap Tasmaner

Well yes— Santa is usually thought of as a person. But regardless, as I said before in normal usage it’s perfectly fine you say Santa doesn’t exist. But ontologically, yes the concept of Santa claus is a being— it’s something; it “is.”

I don't see being as separate from becoming; the only difference I could imagine would be to see it as becoming abstractly considered by putting the idea or sense of change aside. Do you understand being as changeless? — Janus

No, but I don’t see “it” as separate from change either. I don’t really see it as anything. Yet there are all kinds of things in the world— obviously. Beings all over the place. When asking about the beingness of beings, I think all we can say is that there have been many interpretations, and perhaps ask about the human beings doing the interpreting.

notice that the account of being given in the tradition of Frege, Russell, Quine and so on does not depend on time. — Banno

This is like saying it doesn’t depend on human being. But Frege and Russell were indeed human beings.

I’m getting this from Heidegger. He uses lots of similies for Being. Happening, occurrence, the in-between , the ontological difference, the ‘as’ structure are some of them. — Joshs

Where does Heidegger say being is a “happening”? Or that being is anything at all?

Occurrence, so far as I’ve read, is another term for the present at hand. That’d be like saying Heidegger agrees with the western tradition.

The ontological difference is the distinction between being and beings— it is not a description or claim about being itself.

Again, I don’t see Heidegger ever offering another interpretation of being. What he’s trying to do is analyze the human being asking this question/ interpreting being. The basis for the various western interpretations, for example, is presence — which indicates time. So he sets off to “explicate” dasein in terms of a new conception of time (i.e, temporality) brought to light by a phenomenological analysis of everydayness.

As you know , Heidegger has lots to say about the nothing, authentic angst , the uncanny, absence. — Joshs

Indeed. Would be worth getting into.

Yes, being is a happening. — Joshs

I don't agree with this.

Being isn't any-thing, including a "happening," including "becoming," including "change." It is very much like nothing. We interpret this "nothing," but that's all we can say about it.

So being literally has no properties? — Heiko

Beings have properties. Being is not a being.

What we do in pretending does not seem to be grounded in how things can seem to be something they’re not; nor does it bring about any such seeming. Maybe I’m missing something, but I can’t find much of a connection. — Srap Tasmaner

From what I gather, phenomena appear in various ways, but all are "manifestations" (phusis), related to unconcealedness (aletheia). So that which manifests or is uncovered. That's phenomena, as traditionally thought. Heidegger will go on to talk much more about this relation to "presence" (time), and basically say that phenomenology is the study of absences. Or that's what I gather from him anyway.

His talking about "seeming" is important because it shows up right away in early Greek thought, along with "becoming," and leads directly to Plato's ontology. Being, as opposed to mere seeming/semblance and inconstancy, becomes thought of as the constant, the enduring.

"Harry Potter is a fictional character" on the other hand explicitely expresses the mode of his existence and makes perfect sense. — Heiko

Harry Potter is a thing. Harry Potter is a being. That's where we start. Whatever else we want to say about it is up to us. He's a fictional character, yes. In common usage, if we were to say that Harry Potter is "real," people would think we're insane. But does Harry Potter "exist" -- if by "exist" we mean is a being? Yeah, of course. So do unicorns and Santa Claus.

:up:

Existence is a predicate. — Cuthbert

No it isn’t.

Imagine going on and on about an apple that “doesn’t exist.”

Ohh so he was an activist, didn't engage solely in direct action, but he's OK because he didn't "electioneer" and give "campaign contributions." Got it. So not a "suck up to power."

sucking up to power. — StreetlightX

Oh ok, I get it now. Only direct action counts as "activism." Cool. :up:

MLK was a real suck up to power, too.

Petitioning is another abstraction and one of many types of activism, yes.

direct action — StreetlightX

Is an abstraction -- one of many types of activism.

Probably because they don't reduce activism to 'petitioning those in power to act on their behalf' — StreetlightX

Not reducing, no. But that’s exactly what they’re doing.

It's hard not to ask the question of being without getting into Heidegger, but let's see this question has any relevance to our lives, as individuals and also in the society/culture we happen to be living in.

I think it does, in the same sense that belief in God does. This is why I bring up religion often as being in a similar dimension as philosophy. I think they both ask and try to answer fundamental, universal human questions— and the answers (tacit or explicit) manifest themselves in our culture and our lifestyles.

Although Christianity is still around, I’d argue that this is a secular age, defined by capitalism and scientism — based solely on looking at how we actually live, and who our leaders are (and the beliefs on such they make and justify their decisions).

Thoughts on this? Am I way off?

My bad— just stupid activists then.

people actually doing good — StreetlightX

No— stupid activists. Probably voted against Trump to boot.

Stupid kid activists.

A place can't disagree with someone. — Bartricks

:rofl:

For the most part, education, health and wealth are not things you have a right to. — Bartricks

Thankfully most civilized places on earth disagree with you.

The roasting must take place on democratic party approved bounds only. — StreetlightX

No.

Doesn’t Biden deserve to be roasted for this? — Srap Tasmaner

Sure— just as he deserves to be roasted for asking OPEC to increase oil production, which I pointed out weeks ago.

Which is similar to the point I've been trying to make. But the way that I put it is that secular-scientific thought tends to 'objectify' human beings, and in so doing looses what makes human beings different from any other object of rational analysis; that's the sense in which I'm saying that 'beings' are different from 'objects'. — Wayfarer

I know. You're reserving "being" for human beings (or sentient beings). That's not the use in ontology or in this thread. Human beings are indeed different from other beings, and are intimately interconnected with the question of being. That beings become "objects" is a historical fact, one that really takes root in the modern era, starting with Descartes and reaching its apex in Kant. The res cogitans, the thinking (read: conscious) substance ('res') over and against the res extensa, the extended substance, is the mind/body issue and, later, the subject/object issue. The development of science out of natural philosophy takes it further.

All of this is worth exploring. But it doesn't get off the ground if you repeatedly refuse to understand the terminology, which you seem incapable of not doing.

:yawn:

unconditional votes — StreetlightX

Not unconditional.

unconditional support. — StreetlightX

Has nothing to do with support.

Have you met American politicians? — StreetlightX

Yes. And they don't give a fuck about non-voters like you, who stay home because, you know, "both parties bad."

Any progress made occurred as the result of people abiding his advice. — James Riley

He has no advice. No alternatives, no solutions, no strategy. It's stupid to vote against the worst candidate, because both candidates are awful. Activism is stupid, voting (or not voting) is paramount -- that'll teach 'em. Typical establishment propaganda.

you just can't do anything whatsoever to hold him materially accountable for the suffering he causes"). — StreetlightX

Imagine thinking that withholding a vote is the only way to hold someone to account. :rofl:

Mmm, your point wasn't at all that one must, deapite it all, vote for Joe Biden, because not doing so would be like giving up on the civil rights movement. — StreetlightX

That wasn't the point, correct. The point is that, like the civil rights movement, the Sunrise Movement continues on, whether we take the five minutes to vote against the worst every four years or not. Setbacks are going to occur either way.

What we don't do is what you're promoting: everything's the same and activism is stupid. Brilliant.

I think there's a legitimate and fundamental distinction to be made between beings and objects — Wayfarer

Sentient beings and objects, you mean. Which is like saying human beings aren't simply objects. Fine. Noted. Move on.

Biden is indeed better than Trump on the environment, and the pushing of environmental activists — like the Sunrise Movement — will continue, despite predictable setbacks. The civil rights movement had many setbacks as well
— Xtrix

Are you OK? — StreetlightX

Are you? Let me help: Notice the "and." Then: "The pushing of environment activists -- like the Sunrise Movement -- will continue, despite predictable setbacks." I wonder if the next sentence about the civil rights movement was referring to Joe Biden, an individual, or the Sunrise Movement, also a movement.

Could have been the one that makes no sense whatsoever. Guess I was unclear. :roll:

A perfectly viable choice might be to shoot both in the head. — StreetlightX

Yeah, that's brilliant. Problem solved. Here, let me try: let's shoot them all in the head and start anew. Excellent. Satisfying.

Now back to the real world.