Was he a revolutionary? Or a lunatic? — frank

I really can't see how anyone who's actually read Nietzsche can claim he's a "lunatic." I don't think it absurd to say his thinking was revolutionary for his time.

Every time I read the Antichrist, I'm amazed at the brilliance and clarity. One of his most direct attacks on Christianity.

All ‘truths’ are mere appearances which emerge out of value systems. — Joshs

Fantastic. Or maybe all value systems are appearances of truths! :chin: :yawn:

Only in the latter case can there be no truth toward which we can approach. And this latter option wherein there is no ubiquitous reality of anything needs some explaining if it is to be taken seriously. — javra

We shouldn't take it seriously, except when reading Nietzsche or having academic conversations. It's like debating about whether the earth is spherical or gravity exists. Can be fun and interesting, but we'll still walk out the door and not the window (to paraphrase Hume I think).

In the real world, climate change is already happening all around us because of an excessive amount of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels for human activities like electrical power, transportation, producing cement and steel, etc. Simple. We don't have time to dick around with the nature of "truth."

He certainly was laughing at something.

“It is no more than a moral prejudice that the truth is worth more than appearance; in fact, it is the world's most poorly proven assumption.”

“The world with which we are concerned is false, i.e., is not fact but fable and approximation on the basis of a meager sum of observations; it is "in flux," as something in a state of becoming, as a falsehood always changing but never getting near the truth: for--there is no "truth" (Nietzsche 1901/1967 Will to Power) — Joshs

Exactly. Even he would be laughing at you.

Not all perspectives are right. Some further values better than others, according to him. By "truth" he means the ultimate truth of philosophers and theologians.

But again, this is changing the subject: I never once said there needs to be a universal perspective. But to take it out of the abstract bullshit you seem to want to engage in, I'll make it concrete: the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming. For all intents and purposes, it's most certainly true that we're heading for disaster unless something is done to prevent or mitigate it.

True, we can deny it by having academic discussions about the nature of "truth", and talk of "alternative facts," etc. That seems to be the popular strategy these days. Glad to see you're helping to spread it.

At this point, I think what's needed is an awakening similar to a religious conversion in the sense of a complete change in perspective, and one that has to be reached on a global scale.
— Xtrix
What we really DO NOT NEED are religious awakenings, mantras that repeated as pseudo-religious chants without much if any thought given to what actually is said. Keep religion away. These problems will not be solved by faith based strategies, on the contrary! — ssu

Yeah, perhaps you missed the "similar" part, which is crucial. No one, least of all me, is advocating for a particular religion.

What will it take to eradicate nuclear weapons and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero? (To name only two.)
— Xtrix
Starting with those.

So what is the problem you have with volcanoes erupting or natural forest fires? Just look at what you write and consider it taken literally.

Zero emissions.

All greenhouse gas emissions. — ssu

How disingenuous. You got me! Well done. I again made the fatal mistake of thinking I was writing for adults.

I guess I committed a crime tonight when I warmed the water front sauna with couple pieces of wood. — ssu

Yeah, and don't forget exhaling. Because that's definitely what I meant too.

in any case, you're just changing the subject. I never once said there needs to be a "single universal perspective."
— Xtrix

No, I think your statement below articulates what I had in mind more clearly than ‘single universal perspective’.

it proves that some perspectives are WRONG. Yes, I do believe in truth
— Xtrix — Joshs

Yes, because that's such a controversial statement.

Even Nietzsche would be laughing at you.

"Humans are notoriously awful at predicting the future."

You didn't say anything about apocalypse.

True, maybe the world isn't destroyed by climate change or nuclear weapons. Which is like saying "Maybe the asteroid will miss us, despite scientists telling us there's 99% likelihood that it will". After all, Nostradamus was wrong.

Climate change not only will radically alter the world, it already has. There is also the possibility of tipping points, which are irreversible -- for anyone willing to read what the scientists are telling us. Or we can take your attitude: maybe they're all wrong. Yeah, maybe there won't be an solar eclipse on April 4th, 2024. Maybe? Who knows? The Aztecs were way off, remember.

First of all, this is a very large minority. — Joshs

No, actually it isn't. If you're talking about the United States, it's fairly large -- but still a minority. Most of them are immobile, and I have no hope or interest in converting them.

Secondly, believing the opposition is simply ‘brainwashed’ rather than operating from an entirely different frame of understanding than yours will keep you tied up in knots. — Joshs

So you're going to keep arguing nonsense, I see. I should just ignore it, but I won't:

Of COURSE they are operating from a "different frame of reference." So are ISIS, so are Creationists, so were the Nazis. What good do you think you're doing pointing out truisms like this? Do you really think I've overlooked this fact -- a fact that a child could grasp?

One can "operate from a different frame of reference" and be brainwashed. That's what's happening with climate denial. No, I'm not "tied up in knots" about it -- I have very little hatred for ignorant or brainwashed people, despite the consequences of their deluded beliefs. But there's simply not enough time to try to "convince" people who are already deeply caught in propaganda. This shouldn't be hard to understand, but please continue arguing on anyway...

“Who mentioned anything about a "single universal perspective"? You're arguing against self-created phantoms.”

Assuming that those who disagree with you on this issue are brainwashed pre-supposes that facts can be separated from perspectives and values. — Joshs

No, it proves that some perspectives are WRONG. Yes, I do believe in truth. Call me crazy.

But in any case, you're just changing the subject. I never once said there needs to be a "single universal perspective." Not once. That, as I said before, is your own fantasy.

My point is that there will never be precise agreement , nor does there need to be, on what exactly the ‘particular problem’ is. — Joshs

There is 97% + agreement on what the problem is -- from those in the field. That's good enough for me.

I'm not interested in the minority who have been brainwashed into denialism by the fossil fuel propaganda juggernaut, I'm interested only in those who either don't know enough about it or know but don't prioritize it.

Humans are notoriously awful at predicting the future. At least I can’t think of anyone who got it right. — NOS4A2

We get it right all the time, every day in fact. This is just another stupid talking point used whenever climate change is brought up. You're not fooling me or anyone else.

can't see a way we survive unless there's wide-scale awareness and prioritization of this particular problem.
— Xtrix

One could make the same argument about World war 1, World war 2 and the Cold war. People make accommodations to alien cultures ( peace treaties) and adjustments to perceived threats from within their own way of seeing the world , not by melding into a single universal perspective. — Joshs

Who mentioned anything about a "single universal perspective"? You're arguing against self-created phantoms.

I'll repeat: what's needed is wide-scale awareness and prioritization of the particular problem (climate change). Without it, it's business as usual and we're toast. This has nothing to do with World War 1 and 2 or the Cold War. It's pure delusion not to recognize this.

Not only will we never get these communities to ‘awaken’ to the same understanding on any issue , we shouldn’t consider it a desirable goal. — Joshs

I can't see a way we survive unless there's wide-scale awareness and prioritization of this particular problem. That doesn't mean I think it'll happen.

It'll take a lot of education, organization, conversations with one another, practical (and local) efforts, etc. All possible, many of it going on right now. It's just pure delusion to consider this anything but desirable.

Congratz you've resorted to a Ad hominem fallacy. — Tiberiusmoon

It's "congrats," not "congratz." Also, it's "an ad hominem," not "a ad hominem."

Add "learning how to write" on your to-do list before spewing incoherent bullshit..

So wouldn't you need fundamental information/context in order to answer it?

But a question has no answer at the beginning, the answer is the sum of the question not the other way round, don't you see? — Tiberiusmoon

Yes, I see that you're a complete buffoon -- and you're boring me. Bye.

But there's no way around it: we stop burning fossil fuels or we die
— Xtrix

We're probably going to die then. North America has like 200 years worth of coal to burn. — frank

Maybe. But again, it's up to all of us. It's not like an asteroid -- this is self-inflicted, and can be stopped. It'll be difficult, but not impossible. It can be achieved by spending something like 3% of GDP a year according to Robert Pollin.

Large asset managers are shifting their AUM to ESGs, solar and wind are cheaper to build, major automobile makers are going fully EV by 2035, and increasing majorities are concerned and want something done quickly (here). To name a few glimmers of hope.

So I don't think it's inevitable at all -- we just have to wake up.

For me, the leading problem is one of values held and aspired toward by the majority of humans inhabiting this earth: both those in power and those who grant them their power. — javra

Well said. This is also what I mean by awakening. A paradigm shift, a revolution -- all similar: a major, far-reaching event that happens relatively quickly.

He found , however, that chemicals alone do not determine imagination. In his autobiography he recounted the story of trying to turn on Jack Kerouac and Arthur Koestler, only to be disappointed by their underwhelming reaction to the lsd experience. — Joshs

Yeah, I don't think it's simply a matter of taking a drug. But they've also been shown to be very beneficial in therapeutic settings -- MDMA, psilocybin, LSD, etc -- and so can be a helpful tool to break people out of their usual mental and behavioral patterns. Even marijuana can have that effect. But it all depends on the setting and the person taking it, their expectations and disposition.

As I said before, putting LSD in the water isn't the answer to anything.

Okay so what answer tells you more about multiplication?
=12 =12 — Tiberiusmoon

Neither tells you anything about multiplication.

As you just said, that information is required of the question itself, the answer is the outcome of logic piecing it together like a puzzle.

The fundamental knowledge of a answer is the question because that is what makes the question. — Tiberiusmoon

I have no idea what "fundamental knowledge of a[n] answer" means. I really can't make heads or tails of what you're talking about here. I think it's yet another example of Forum word salad.

"The answer is the question because that is what makes the question."

What makes the question? The question. Which is the answer.

If anyone else understands this, I salute you.

Well that actually drove some of the 60's counter-culture. You may not recall the Whole Earth Catalog, but it was very much about that. Another set of books that deeply influenced me back then were Theodore Roszak's books, Making of a Counter Culture and Where the Wasteland Ends. Many of the sixties idealists were deeply into those ideas, but they were always very niche in their appeal. Maybe their time will come, too. It should! (Actually, have a look at some of the essays on David Loy's site, https://www.davidloy.org/articles.html - his writings on ecological economics are really good. ) — Wayfarer

Thank you, I will.

Maybe Heidegger was right: "Only a god can save us."
— Xtrix
Or Kurtzweil + Brin: Only a "singularity" can "uplift" us. — 180 Proof

I can't say I know who those people are, or what that means.

I should resist. I'm done. There's no hope. I've explained - from philosophical justification through to the specific technologies that need to be applied, how we might agree to do what's necessary to a prosperous and sustainable future, and been ignored. — counterpunch

Sorry to hear that, but defeatism guarantees the worst.

Back in the day we used to call this class consciousness. Now I guess it's got to be translated into some ephemeral existential stuff to gain traction. — StreetlightX

I would include class consciousness as a particularly important type of awakening. Given capitalism is basically a religion, to raise this consciousness would be on par with a religious conversion.

I think the kind of awakening that is needed, is a realignment of culture so that material acquisition is not the only aim of existence.
— Wayfarer

I've explained why this is wrong. It leads to authoritarian government imposing poverty forever after for the sake of sustainability. — counterpunch

Such nonsense.

If you will read the post slowly, you might catch the point of putting "problem" in quotes. Here's a hint : every generation has faced the same general "problem". — Gnomon

No, they haven't. The problems we currently face are unparalleled. With the exception of nuclear weapons, we're in uncharted territory.

There's pretty widespread recognition of the problem. China is building nuclear power plants, which is what we all should be doing. — frank

They're also building coal plants. Nuclear power is a good option, but not the only one. It's a favorite of Republicans because it doesn't threaten their fossil fuel interests. But there's no way around it: we stop burning fossil fuels or we die. We have a couple decades to decide, maybe less.

But I think the kind of awakening that is needed, is a realignment of culture so that material acquisition is not the only aim of existence. And that will take an enormous change. — Wayfarer

Exactly. Such an enormous shift of consciousness that one can only compare it to religion.

Maybe Heidegger was right: "Only a god can save us."

I just think people generally lack perspective, and get locked into one way of thinking , a little understanding goes a long way and psychedelics or a nig bag of weed can help with that. — DingoJones

I think so too. But short of legalizing it all and then putting it in everyone's water, I don't know how long it'd take for enough people to do it, and what the results will be. I think it's one possible tool in a movement, like the 60s, but isn't necessarily a magic bullet in itself, if you take my meaning.

What will it take to solve these problems? What will it take to eradicate nuclear weapons and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero?
— Xtrix

Good question.

I think what can be said for sure is that communism can't be the answer. Environmental pollution was appalling in the Soviet Union and continues to be a huge problem in China which is ruled by the Communist Party.

Capitalism also seems to create some problems. — Apollodorus

I don't think communism is the solution either, but capitalism hasn't simply created some problems in my view -- it is the main driver of this problem. Not because we need fossil fuels for transportation and plastics and whatnot, but because it is fundamentally a system based on greed, on profit. If that's the objective of this game, then it really shouldn't be a wonder why we haven't long ago left fossil fuels behind -- given that we already have solutions. Mostly it's come down to money and the power of the fossil fuel industry to deliberately sow confusion and to lobby to prevent legislation, regulation, or budgeting to promote renewables (including nuclear).

So perhaps the answer is a "better" capitalism -- which has been tried and which has given better results than the neoliberal version -- or essentially no capitalism at all. But even if it's the latter case, it's still not a matter of capitalism vs. communism as the only choices.

I suspect that the very real problem of social alienation is the biggest culprit here, preventing people from seeing how masses can change laws to attain a more just future. — Manuel

I think this is probably correct, yes. A huge factor. That social alienation, passivity, apathy, or hopelessness themselves are what I mean by an "awakening" too -- waking us all from that state of mind.

The only thing that seems to me plausible is to have people focus on one concrete project related to these issues, say, closing one pipeline or reducing the budget of the military a little in a certain project. — Manuel

I think this is true too. Gotta only act locally -- put your head down and get to work where you are. Talking about this with others is key -- spreading awareness. It really is the issue of our time.

Now, after years of promoting the meme of Global Warming -- which at first was misunderstood as only a matter of temperature -- the "problem" of Ecological Climate Change is widespread in the western world. But still, we look around and think : "why haven't we yet reached the promised peak of the tipping point, that heralds a New Awakening". — Gnomon

Why is "problem" in quotation marks? And what do you mean by "promised peak of the tipping point" in this context? Because it seems to me you're confusing climate tipping points with what I'm talking, which is a change in perspective.

I'm really not sure what you're driving at with these examples.

If it happens, it will absorb all existing frameworks into itself, as Christianity did. — frank

Maybe. I think what is really needed is to simply recognize what's really happening. That's easier said than done, although it's not complicated stuff once it's pointed out to you. We're heading for suicide, and we need to do something about it, and no one seems to be taking it seriously enough. In that situation, where people are existentially wrong about things, it's hard to see what else can save us besides a religious-like awakening. We all seem so stuck in business-as-usual, with our heads down in our phones, it's hard to imagine an alternative. I think the only way that happens is through what the Christians did: evangelizing. Spreading the word, living by example, etc. The way any religion or philosophy spreads. We need that -- minus the religion and philosophy labels. We simply need a new way of seeing and thinking.

But the countervailing forces are also extremely powerful. The so-called conservative movement in the USA is deeply rooted in unawareness and psychopathology. But Western culture is also fundamentally resistant to the kinds of changes that are needed. It's a very complex problem, but one of the things that Western consumer culture is really good at, is making life comfortable for those who are lucky enough to be part of it. That also tends to mitigate against change. — Wayfarer

Very true. I think there are deeply embedded reasons for why we're heading to suicide, and they lie in Western history and culture -- and therefore in many ways in Christianity and science, which are both nihilistic (channelling Nietzsche here). We can also point to the economic system of capitalism that rose from Western soil and the technology that's arisen from Western science -- from the industrial revolution to the current information age. It's all connected, but I think Nietzsche was on to something with his analysis of European values and his warnings about nihilism.

Maybe one hope is the East, so at this point China. But even they are capitalists now, and are in fact outperforming the capitalists. That doesn't leave us much hope, short of a complete re-orientation or as Kuhn put it a "paradigm shift," in this case a spiritual one.

I often feel as though there will be either a catastrophic change, or a huge shakeup, in the near future, due to our colliding with resource shortages and environmental change. But then, my father, in the 1970's, thought that by year 2000 the world was bound to be gripped by Malthusian problems and there would be global famine, and he was wrong about that. So I don't know. But I think the kind of awakening that is needed, is a realignment of culture so that material acquisition is not the only aim of existence. And that will take an enormous change. — Wayfarer

Here's the thing that's strange: what if your father was RIGHT? He could have very well been. "Well it didn't happen" people often say if negative predictions don't come true, but we ignore the fact that these warnings changed things. To me it's like saying "The asteroid didn't hit earth -- so much for all those alarmists!"

We do know what's going to happen: we're dead. But that's *if* we don't do anything. We can't wait around and see if the scientists all have it wrong; they either do or we're toast. There's a third option: do things now to prevent it from happening.

I'm sure you take my point, but I felt it worth pointing out.

Force feed a pile of magic mushrooms to the worlds leaders and elite classes. The problems will resolve. — DingoJones

:wink: I know you're joking, but I've actually wondered about the role of drugs. Look at the movements of the 1960s and look at what drugs were being used there versus say the 1980s. I personally think there's a lot to gain from psychedelic substances. Painkillers, cocaine, and alcohol -- not so much (but they have their place!).

Appreciate that -- very different from Robinson translation, which is why I didn't recognize it.

When we're not discovering "fundamental knowledge," but still asking basic questions, is that not philosophy? What's fundamental knowledge anyway? For that matter, what's knowledge?

Are the last two questions "philosophy" or not?
— Xtrix

Logically speaking; questions are the fundamental knowledge of answers pieced together with logic and context, because a question will tell you more about the subject than the answer. — Tiberiusmoon

Questions are fundamental answers? Maybe examples would help here, because this simply looks incoherent to me.

When we ask "What is justice?" -- this indeed presupposes that we have some idea about what we're referring to. Or "What is a tree?" But to say questions and answers are the same thing "pieced together" somehow by "logic and context" is basically meaningless. We have questions, and we don't always have answers to those questions. Sometimes that's because the questions are incoherent, sometimes because we don't have enough information or experience, etc.

When we ask very basic questions of life, we're "doing" philosophy. When we contemplate the answers to questions, we're doing philosophy. When we're thinking about lunch, we're not doing philosophy. Philosophy is essentially ontology -- we think about being and the being of various beings.

This is arguable, but as close to a definition as I can see. The rest seems "privative."

“ Mathematical knowledge is regarded as the one way of apprehending beings which can always be certain of the secure possession of the being of the beings which it apprehends. Whatever has the kind of being adequate to the being accessible in mathematical knowledge is in the true sense. This being is what always is what it is. Thus what can be shown to have the character of constantly remaining, as remanens capax mutationem, constitutes the true being of beings which can be experienced in the world. What enduringly remains truly is. This is the sort of thing that mathematics knows. What mathematics makes accessible in beings constitutes their being. Thus the being of the "world" is, so to speak, dictated to it in terms of a definite idea of being which is embedded in the concept of substantiality and in terms of an idea of knowledge which cognizes beings in this way. Descartes does not allow the kind of being of innerworldly beings to present itself, but rather prescribes to the world, so to speak, its "true" being on the basis of an idea of being (being = constant objective presence) the source of which has not been revealed and the justification of which has not been demonstrated. Thus it is not primarily his dependence upon a science, mathematics, which just happens to be especially esteemed, that determines his
ontology of the world, rather his ontology is determined by a basic ontological orientation toward being as constant objective presence, which mathematical knowledge is exceptionally well suited to grasp.* In this way Descartes explicitly switches over philosophically from the development of traditional ontology to modem mathematical physics and its transcendental
foundations.” (Being and Time) — Joshs

Can you cite the page and translation please?

Philosophy is the name given to the attempt of describing the guiding principles of one's life. — Book273

Philosophy is the development of self-aware thought and it's communication — Cheshire

What about: philosophy is a word we give to a kind of thinking distinguished by the questions being asked. Those questions are perennial ones, showing up in all ancient writings -- what is life, death, a human being, existence, love, justice, meaning, happiness, "goodness," etc.

I feel like this is broad enough a definition to include a lot of what's being said here.

Whatever possessed you to revive this, a year after its demise? Always an interesting topic, but still....

Addendum:
Scrolling back to gather groundwork, I see it is your thread. Which serves as the best reason there is for reviving it. My bad....sorry. — Mww

:grin: Excellent question, though. I clicked on "discussions" I had created and noticed I failed to respond to you last year, and given it was an interesting reply I felt compelled to do it. Better late than never.

Philosophy is the discovery of fundamental knowledge — Tiberiusmoon

Well many great minds agree with you. It just rings hollow for me. The influence of epistemology/science and the problems therein (how do we know we know, etc) seems obvious.

When we're not discovering "fundamental knowledge," but still asking basic questions, is that not philosophy? What's fundamental knowledge anyway? For that matter, what's knowledge?

Are the last two questions "philosophy" or not?

In an if-then relationship, the antecedent is sufficient for the consequent, and the consequent is necessary for the antecedent. So when one says "if I am conscious then I exist" (implied by saying "I am conscious therefore I exist"), one is saying that existence is necessary for consciousness. If you were to reverse it, and say "I exist therefore I am conscious", you would be saying that consciousness is necessary for existence, and that existence is sufficient for consciousness, i.e. that everything that exists necessarily must ("first") be conscious. Which seems the opposite of what you're aiming for, and what Descartes was saying, i.e. that everything that is conscious necessarily must ("first") exist. — Pfhorrest

That's certainly what I'm trying to avoid, yes. If we take Descartes to mean by "If I am consciously aware, then I exist" that we likewise exist even when we're not conscious, then that's fine. But the emphasis was placed on consciousness, not on unconsciousness, and it's precisely in unconsciousness where we live the majority of our lives. So I still view this as unfortunate. By saying "If I exist, then I have the possibility to think," we're shifting emphasis. Now we want to ask "What is it like to exist as a human being?" rather than "What is thought/consciousness?"

So are there 3 positions?

1) being is source

2) being is knowledge

3) being is something else — Gregory

Let me give another brief synopsis of Heidegger, if you don't mind. Bear with me, because it's slightly longer than normal, but it'll give perhaps an overview that'll help flush out the details. This is my reading, of course, so please push me for citations and details if you're skeptical about any particular claim.

Being can be interpreted in many ways. That's exactly the point. It has been interpreted as phusis, as idea, as ousia, as substantia, as God, as nature, and so on...it has also been called a "vapor" (Nietzsche) and an empty word. All of which are true in their own way.

What Heidegger does is try to show that this spectrum of interpretations in the Western world, beginning with the Greeks, shares something in common -- as one would expect, given that we're all not only part of the "Western" tradition (I like to think along the lines of languages, in this case Proto-Indo-European) but also human beings, and so can't help but do some things similarly.

That common feature, according to Heidegger, is presence. Derrida calls this the "metaphysics of presence," and he's right.

Presence, of course, implies "time" -- the present. But if we take "time" to mean what the tradition has meant by it (starting with Aristotle), or even how it's "ordinarily" understood, we're right back on to the wrong track. Why? Because the perspective which guided Aristotle's interpretation of time was itself rooted in presence -- it was itself one part of this tradition. Therefore, time itself also gets interpreted as something present -- as a series or sequence of "now-points."

This is why Heidegger tries to come up with a new understanding of time as "ecstatic openness," as temporality. To do so, he also has to re-interpret the human being; not as rational animal, which the tradition holds, but as dasein -- a "here," a "clearing," etc. Why? Because we're the one's raising this question to begin with. We're the ones interpreting "being" at all, or are even concerned with it. So it's important to understand ourselves, and if it turns out that this "clearing" is the point where everything gets interpreted from, then we cannot use the traditional perspective to understand it. If we did, we'd simply be using the traditional concepts of "nature," "material," "substance," "time," "reason," "animal," etc.

So we need to re-interpret the human being, ourselves, without bringing in concepts from the past. This is why he calls us "dasein," why he calls time "temporality," and all the other weird terms he uses. It's also why he emphasizes phenomenology as the method for analysis. When he analyzes dasein, he goes through various layers until he arrives at the interpretation of us as this embodied time -- temporality.

Dasein, who cares about, understands, and interprets being = being-in-the-world = care = temporality. The "da," the here, is an openness which in later Heidegger becomes more aligned with "aletheia," the concept of un-concealment or disclosure. He'll say that this is what Parmenides was talking about in the famous "thinking and being are one" fragment -- that he really is saying "apprehension and being are one," apprehension/perceiving in the sense of un-concealment. But the point remains.

How any of this is relevant to the real world, to our lives, to politics, etc., is another question. :lol:

I think I mostly agree with that, except for the "don't depend on philosophers anymore" part. Maybe not contemporary philosophers, but certainly philosophy. The sciences don't simply detach from general human thought or basic philosophcial questions -- they're still very much grounded upon tentative answers to basic questions of philosophy, which also provides their fundamental concepts.

the "I think, therefore I am" should be inverted. (...) What I'm saying there is that the "sum" is even more primordial than "thought," and thus the Cogito should be inverted in that sense. I didn't mean to imply everything that "is" is a conscious, thinking being.
— Xtrix

Not sure Rene would go for that; it is my understanding that he intended the “I” of “...therefore I am” to be necessarily conditioned by the “cogito”. In other words, they are mutually dependent, same subject, different predicates kinda thing. The “I” that thinks is not the cause of the “I” that is, and the “I” that is is not an effect of the “I” that thinks. The “I” that thinks is the very same as the “I” that is. — Mww

I'm sure Descartes wouldn't go for it, but I nonetheless think it's true. Remember, the "I" that thinks is nothing more than the conscious subject, in my reading. In fact when Descartes goes to clarify this in his Principles of Philosophy, he says by "thought" he means consciousness. So by saying "I am conscious, therefore I exist" would be more accurate. Even more accurate, and close to what I think you're saying: "I am conscious, I exist." The "therefore" isn't necessary.

But to me it's all like saying "I'm awake, therefore I'm alive." We all know that when we're asleep, we're still alive. Likewise, we're not always consciously aware, yet we exist. Existence seems a more primordial concept, then, and something out of which all other human activities emerge -- just like "life." Or at least it's the background upon which things like thinking and awareness take place -- existence is presupposed.

So, again, the inversion should read: "I exist, therefore I can be conscious of things, think, and even give this the 'I' label." The dead cannot think at all.

what we can "know" with our senses, with empirical data, is all that can be known
— Xtrix

Not an advocate of a priori knowledge, huh? Are we to maintain that it is impossible to know anything that isn’t first perceived? — Mww

I was speaking for the empiricists and most scientists here, not myself.

Advertisement has done untold harm. It's gotten worse with time. Less about information about a product, more about flashiness -- use of sex appeal, "catchy" jingles, slogans, etc. Repeated over and over again, this effects our psychology in many ways. Plenty of studies on this. It goes right along with the public relations industry, Edward Bernays and others: ways to influence the public by creating wants and swaying opinion.

True, we can continue with the delusion that it's all about individual choice and that advertisement isn't to blame -- but that's a complete joke. Advertisement, like other kinds of manipulation -- propaganda -- most certainly has effects, and not for the better.

The Sickness is the System
Richard Wolff

Little (paraphrased) excerpt on workplace alternatives I think is worth sharing:

“I want to extend democracy to include the workplace because I believe it should never have been excluded from it. I find it bizarre that in a country that makes a big deal of its commitment to democracy that it never applied that so-called value to the workplace. You know, the workplace is where most adults spend most of their time. Nine to five, five out of seven days a week, in most parts of the world — the best hours of the day you’re working, many more hours you’re recuperating from it or getting ready for it. This is a very crucial part of your life — and a democratic society really doesn’t deserve the label if it excludes the workplace from the democratic commitments that it articulates.”

just as a hammer can be thought of as a wooden stick with a metal piece on the end of it, weighing a certain amount and of a certain dimension or having other properties, but isn't thought of such when we're absorbed in the activity of hammering, likewise the world isn't simply "material."
— Xtrix

Does that mean for Heidegger the world is more than material, that it is at least material? Is a material thing something that has a countable duration i. time and an extension in space? Does Heidegger accept this description and only want to remind us that the subjective aspect contributes such notions as usefulness to what an object is? How are duration and extension derived? Do they presuppose some basis on which to measure duration and extension, that is , some feature that remains constant and self-identical such that it can be counted? — Joshs

I don't know what "at least material" means.

Heidegger is saying that our present-at-hand mode of being is very different from our more absorbed coping with the world, as exemplified by equipment (like hammers). When we're doing philosophy and science, we see things as objects -- mass, material, weight, dimensions, time as a number line, etc. When we're engaged with activities, or are in "flow," we're not in the same mode and so not seeing things in the same way. The hammer no longer is a material object with properties, it's something for hammering. That's not to say it's not also material, but that materialism is privative.

To my eyes Heidegger's ontic is dualistic (me and a hammer) but his ontology is not so — Gregory

Remember that "ontic" refers to entities, and "ontological" to being. It's not that Heidegger discounts the fact that at times we consider ourselves "selves" or even "subjects" apart from an outside world -- that is certainly the case, sometimes. But precisely in moments of absorbed coping (as Dreyfus puts it), the ready-to-hand moments of skilled action, like hammering, we're not a subject wielding a hammer. Another example is driving, or maybe even walking or opening a door. There's little memory of most of these things, we can be talking or on the phone or thinking about all kinds of things -- most of it is unconscious and not guided by any conscious rule-following. In moments like this, we're not subjects or objects.

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. — Gregory

It's worth keeping in mind that "matter" is a scientific concept from physics and chemistry. So from this perspective, which seems to be true for sure, we're atoms and molecules and cells. We have bodies, brains, eyes, organs, flesh, tissue, muscles and bones and blood, etc. But remember the "perspective" part -- just as a hammer can be thought of as a wooden stick with a metal piece on the end of it, weighing a certain amount and of a certain dimension or having other properties, but isn't thought of such when we're absorbed in the activity of hammering, likewise the world isn't simply "material." That's a strong perspective, the perspective of natural science, but it's limiting and, basically, derivative. It leaves out the "world," and our typical being in the world. It's an abstraction which, while true, isn't the whole truth, and isn't even the primary truth. Even as Kant pointed out, rightly, it forgets the "subject" and our contributions to the "outside world" of matter. In a sense, there would be no matter without human beings.

Does this make sense?

What type of being does Man understand? The material world? — Gregory

Again, forgive my nit-picking, but when you say "type" of being, do you mean how Man interprets being? I'm taking you to mean this.

So yes, seeing the world as material is a good example. That's certainly one interpretation. In this view the world is a substance -- ousia, in Greek (or how it's traditionally translated, anyway). That substance ontology goes right through Descartes, according to Heidegger. His mind/body dualism is really the res cogitans and the res extensa, in Latin. The res is basically a substance -- the conscious/thinking substance and the extended substance. So here we have a split between our consciousness and the contents of our consciousness, the objects of the "outside world." Seems very natural to most of us. Does this ring true to you as well?

In Kant, the formulation becomes more of a subject with representations about the objects of experience, objects which "pass through" the forms of space and time. But he's still taking up Descartes' ontology. As for his analysis of time, it dates back to Aristotle's essay in his Physics, where time is treated as a present-at-hand being.

But there are many ways of interpreting the world. He argues that the early Greeks interpreted it much differently than those in the middle ages, or even the later Greeks like Plato and Aristotle. He's trying to find the "horizon" for any understanding or interpretation of being at all, and he does so by analyzing us -- dasein. But not in the way we've usually been analyzed and thought of -- in terms of our "reason" or "mind" or "subjectivity" (after all, with an interpretation of being comes an interpretation of human being -- in the West, mostly "echon zoon logon" (the rational animal)). This is why he comes up with this name (dasein), and why he insists on analyzing dasein in its "average everydayness" in a phenomenological manner -- without invoking traditional assumptions, beliefs, prejudices, frameworks, concepts, etc, but letting things speak for themselves, especially that which is "hidden."

As you know, he concludes that time is the horizon for any interception of being, but not "time" in the traditional sense, but in the sense of temporality. Temporality is simply another way of interpretation Sorge, which is a way of tying together our basic state of being-in-the-world.

So you see the different layers here. It's a complicated work, and hard to see it all unless you've read it all (and several times over), studied other texts of his (I recommend Intro to Metaphysics and Basic Problems of Phenomenology), etc.

Also, do you believe Heidegger is saying more than Aristotle and Augustine in putting time in the soul of Dasein? — Gregory

I'm not sure what you mean by this. He does quote from both, and has a long analysis of Aristotle in particular. I'm not sure about his position on Augustine, but with Aristotle he'll go on to say that Aristotle treats "time" as an object, something present-at-hand, and explains it as such in his essay in the Physics. I could go into it more if you're interested, but I'm out of time right now.

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

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

Man is time (temporality). Man also exists, of course, and so is a "being" -- but he is the being (entity) for which "being" is even an issue -- he exists with an understanding of being. In other words, he exists and has an understanding of existence. That's how I would say it. But don't take my word for it:

"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 interconnection 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 any way 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 39/17)
[Italics are Heidegger's, the underlined part is mine]

If this passage makes sense to you differently, I'm interested in hearing why.

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. — Gregory

But just the way you're describing it betrays a kind of Cartesian way of looking at things. Matter is the only thing that can't be created or destroyed? Why invoke matter? That's already two steps removed from what Heidegger is talking about, because now you're bringing concepts from natural philosophy (science) into the equation -- namely, of physics and chemistry.

Equating care with "substance" is also completely off track, in my view. Substance ontology is another example of something Heidegger is trying to overcome -- he feels Descartes inherits a substance ontology from the middle ages (and thus from the Greeks): "He [Descartes] defined the res cogitans ontologically as an ens; and in the medieval ontology the meaning of Being for such an ens had been fixed by understanding it as an ens creatum. God, as ens infinitum, was the ens increatum." (B/T 46/25)

To say that care is substance or matter, and allows us to love/will is like saying "care allows us to care," which is tautological, and is furthermore treating "care" as some kind of entity that isn't dasein (a substance). But care is dasein.

Also, we have no clue what "love" is. If you want to switch "care" for "love," you can of course, but I think that leads to the potential for huge misunderstandings given the connotations -- for example, that love is a kind of desire or an emotion (as distinct from "hatred"), etc. You can completely hate something or be disgusted by something or be "absorbed" by something or fascinated by something, etc., and that's all care. To subsume all of this under "love" is just a mistake.

You’re absolutely correct. Heidegger does not view Dasein from the vantage of a subject-object binary. If one instead speaks of self and world, then Dasein belongs to both poles. — Joshs

It's very tricky to talk about, and I myself often fail to explain it without falling into contradictions. But let me nit-pick a little here: saying "belongs to both" is correct, I think, but notice that "both" also implies that two separate things exist, and that dasein belongs to both of them -- a self and a world. Or perhaps a mind and a body. But another way to say it would be, confusingly, that both are distinctions made by dasein as present-at-hand entities: the present-at-hand entity (the being) of "self" and the present-at-hand entity of "world."

I think you probably agree with this, but it's worth pointing out -- Descartes creeps into even our very way of speaking.

Yes, but how has Heidegger radicalized the concept of time so that it can be understood as heedful circumspective relevance? Why can’t we help caring about the world? Temporality is at the heart of Husserl’s model also but Care doesn’t apply to his approach. Why not? Because the structure of temporality for Heidegger describes an intimacy between past present and future missing from Husserl. Care is this intimate pragmatic relevance, this for-the-sake-of which orients all experience with respect to the immediate past. — Joshs

True, but Sorge is the word that ties together various aspects of being-in-the-world, which is more fo pragmatic the nitty-gritty of dasein's "average everydayness." So while Care is the skeleton, the real analytical meat on the bones comes from the first 5 sections, where he analyzes being-in, worldhood in general, talks about the ready-to-hand and present-at-hand, use of equipment (hammering), etc. I personally find that stuff more interesting and insightful, but to each his own.