So what to look for next? — Ansiktsburk

In terms of?

To say that Heidegger talks a lot about it and that to understand it you have to read everything Heidegger is not to explain anything. — David Mo

That's not what was said.

I didn't mention "the world," I mentioned time, in response to your ridiculous claim that Parmenides was "outside time."
— Xtrix
You confuse two different things again:
Parmenides was a man of (his) time (or world, which is the same in common language). "He was not an angel," you said.
Parmenides thought that Being is timeless (eternal and immobile). What I said. — David Mo

What you said:

There is no presence, no temporality. Parmenides’ thought is produced outside of time and the narration of the poem is a mytho-poetic artifice. — David Mo

Parmenides thought that being is timeless. He "produced" this thought "outside of time." That's what you said. And it's ridiculous. Next time try harder to be clear if this isn't what you meant.

You don't understand Heidegger.
— Xtrix
Surely not. — David Mo

As you've demonstrated very well. The reasons are obvious, too. Not from a lack of intelligence, but from a lack of openness to learning (from him and from me). Pity.

But neither do you. You are not able to answer a single one of my questions and objections. — David Mo

:yawn: Ok bud, whatever you say. There's no such thing as "expertise," I guess. You're like arguing against climate change deniers -- do a little perusing of data, then use it to justify what you already wanted to believe to begin with. What a shocker that the notion of Heidegger you began with hasn't changed. And of course, the person who has studied much longer and more carefully (and open-mindedly) than you "doesn't understand." Standard fare. :yawn:

Regardless, if I don't understand Heidegger, it's surely not been you who have shown that. Nor are you in any position to judge it.

Parmenides was "presencing," and what was disclosed to him was being. Ditto Heraclitus. Both men, as human beings, thought/wrote/interpreted being from the perspective of time -- namely, the present, that which is present before us, that which appears, that which is uncovered and unconcealed. All of the Greeks took "time" as the perspective in which they interpreted themselves and the world, without knowing it. "Time", as pointed out by Kant, is a form of our sensibility, along with space -- in Heidegger's hands it becomes something much different than this Aristotelian "time" which Kant presupposed -- it becomes temporality, which is what Being and Time is about -- namely, interpreting the human being (Dasein) in its average everydayness, which brings out the ontological structures of this entity, as care. Care (Sorge) is reinterpreted as temporality.
— Xtrix

Why are you telling this? — David Mo

Because if you don't understand it, it's no wonder you don't understand his views on Parmenides, phusis, aletheia, the history of Western thought, etc. But you can do on believing you do -- not my business.

Answer my questions and stop tracing texts that you do not understand. — David Mo

I repeat:

If you don't see any of this and consistently keeping it in mind, you're avoiding Heidegger. You're just focusing on isolated features. And it's boring. — Xtrix

Your "questions" have been answered. Multiple times. As I said, if you don't understand them, that's not a surprise...

It is not true that you have established the relationship between Parmenides, presence and time. — David Mo

First you have to understand what "presence" and "time" mean in Heidegger. When you can explain that to me, you'll see understand the already given answer:

No imbroglio. The above says most of it. With regard to "time" (in terms of the common notion since Aristotle's essay), Heidegger will talk at length about. As the Wiki article mentions, correctly, he has a different analysis, which he calls "temporality." — Xtrix

In any case, Parmenides is still "presencing," and this is why the "ground of the collapse" was embedded in the inception. It's not meant as a criticism, but as a description (interpretation) of history. It's also much different from later interpretations and questioning, and one in which we should return. Why? Because Parmenides "indicates Being itself in view of Being and from within Being" (IM p. 102). Still, the seeds of concealment were there from the beginning: "...in the inception of Western philosophy, the perspective that guides the opening up of Being is time, but in such a way that this perspective as such still remained and had to remain concealed." (IM p. 220) The underline is mine. — Xtrix

If you fail to see the connection between "presence" and (common) "time," and how this relates to Parmenides (when you yourself quoted a relevant passage), and furthermore why it's important to understand Heidegger's thesis about Western thought and temporality -- then that's your business. If I thought for a second that further elaborate explanation would actually get through to you, I'd do so. But it won't -- you've already taken a position on Heidegger, and that position has become dogma. Feigning a desire to learn by asking questions you don't understand simply because it's a topic you think you're well versed in (Parmenides) is not of interest to me. You've already taken up enough of my time with digressions about how "wrong" Heidegger thinks Western thought was -- again because you can't keep up with the conversation otherwise. I won't be sucked in again. If you want truly want to learn about what Heidegger thinks of Parmenides, since you refuse to learn from me (after all, I "don't understand" any of it) then here are the relevant texts: Parmenides, Basic Problems of Phenomenology, The History of the Concept of Time, Basic Questions of Philosophy, The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics, and even Phenomenological Interpretations of Aristotle. This of course assumes you've truly and carefully read Being and Time and Introduction to Metaphysics, which I highly doubt. There are also free UC Berkley courses available by Hubert Dreyfus et al., which go through the text carefully and which is a good introduction to Heidegger. Good luck.

That which is present-at-hand is a theoretical object, something that is "extant" or, as Heidegger says, is tied up with what is traditionally meant by "existentia" (basically "substance") [p. 42/67]. Presence-at-hand is a related term, the mode (or attitude) we're in when looking at the world in such a way -- apart from being involved in it with equipment (the "ready-to-hand").
— Xtrix

On the page you mention Heidegger does not give any definition. He simply relates (tantamount) present-at-hand to the classical term existentia. He gives no further explanation and the comparison is not too clarifying, since that term was used in different ways from Aristotle to Ockham.
If you want a definition you'll have to go elsewhere. — David Mo

Heidegger talks about the present-at-hand all over Being and Time. You have to read it to understand it. If you're looking for a place where he "defines" it the a format that's suitable to you, then you probably won't find it, as "x = y." But it's obvious from anyone who's read him what it means, as I explained above (which is uncontroversial in secondary scholarship, even among those who are critical).

The above explanation stands.

I did; you haven't understood it.
— Xtrix

To explain the relationship between three terms you must be able to link them together (Parménides, presence and time) in a sequence or proposition. You did not. — David Mo

Yes, I did. Again, your failure to understand what is being said is not my problem. The cause is that you showed up to this thread (and to Heidegger) not to understand but to defend a position you've already settled upon, that of Carnap, Russell, etc.

Interestingly enough, it is in this commentary that you attempt an explanation. And it is remarkably... naive? insufficient? I will explain it to you. — David Mo

:lol:

Yes, because you've definitely earned the right to give lectures about Heidegger so far. :roll:

Before accusing others of being naive, try to make sure you're not making a complete fool of yourself first. Which you've done over and over again, particularly with your childish reading of Heidegger's views on the history of Western thought.

Logical reasoning? This is your interpretation?
— Xtrix

Of course, that is my interpretation of Parmenides. An interpretation in which I follow the immense majority of experts. I don't risk anything. — David Mo

Yes, you risk nothing indeed by parroting the common reading of Parmenides.

The identification of the goddess of Parmenides with the goddess Truth is a typical case. — David Mo

It also has the benefit of being accurate. But you wouldn't know one way or another, having read so little. Set up more straw men -- I'm not interested. You haven't demonstrated you've understood Heidegger.

It seems a typically childish game: "What does a cheesecake look like at speed?" Heidegger in its pure state. — David Mo

Yes, you've really nailed it. Run along back to the others. Come back when you're serious about learning something -- the way most adults approach a topic.

On the other hand, Heidegger may not use the term contemplation. But since he uses metaphors such as illumination or unveiling which involve contemplation, — David Mo

It doesn't involve contemplation any more than vision involves "contemplation."

You don't understand Heidegger.

In the first case, to say that Parmenides' ideas come from the world in which he lives is probably true, — David Mo

I didn't mention "the world," I mentioned time, in response to your ridiculous claim that Parmenides was "outside time."


Parmenides was "presencing," and what was disclosed to him was being. Ditto Heraclitus. Both men, as human beings, thought/wrote/interpreted being from the perspective of time -- namely, the present, that which is present before us, that which appears, that which is uncovered and unconcealed. All of the Greeks took "time" as the perspective in which they interpreted themselves and the world, without knowing it. "Time", as pointed out by Kant, is a form of our sensibility, along with space -- in Heidegger's hands it becomes something much different than this Aristotelian "time" which Kant presupposed -- it becomes temporality, which is what Being and Time is about -- namely, interpreting the human being (Dasein) in its average everydayness, which brings out the ontological structures of this entity, as care. Care (Sorge) is reinterpreted as temporality.

If you don't see any of this and consistently keeping it in mind, you're avoiding Heidegger. You're just focusing on isolated features. And it's boring.

Come back when you've shown you understood a word of what you've read. Before that, however, it's important to approach a thinker with an open mind. That's what this thread was supposed to be about -- not a defense of a position long ago decided from secondary sources.

Now, you can explain this imbroglio between presence-at-hand, time and Parmenides
— David Mo

I asked you for a clarification that you have not given. — David Mo

I did; you haven't understood it.

It seems that you are in another "stage" (that of the clouds). Instead, I am going to explain it in a less "nebulous" way than yours. — David Mo

You accuse me and Heidegger of being "in the clouds," then go on to offer an analysis of these "clouds" which you admittedly don't understand. Rather you make several utterly false statements and then try to "clean up" Heidegger to essentially be more Cartesian. Much like Sartre. To demonstrate:

No one should look up the definition of "present-at-hand" in Heidegger. It is not given, at least in the texts I have consulted. — David Mo

Have you consulted Being and Time?

That which is present-at-hand is a theoretical object, something that is "extant" or, as Heidegger says, is tied up with what is traditionally meant by "existentia" (basically "substance") [p. 42/67]. Presence-at-hand is a related term, the mode (or attitude) we're in when looking at the world in such a way -- apart from being involved in it with equipment (the "ready-to-hand").

1. Present-at-hand: ambiguity of meanings: a) pure theoretical "contemplation" - as opposed to "ready-to-hand" which includes the interaction of the subject (Dasein) with the world; b) the placing of the subject in front of the objects of the world (the "objective" point of view). — David Mo

No ambiguity -- (a) and (b) are the same thing. Your injecting "subject/object" into this is one example of making Heidegger Cartesian. There's a reason he uses "dasein."

2. Presence: quality of being present to human understanding. Ambiguity: a) the subject is placed in front of the object of knowledge; b) the object of knowledge is placed now (present time as different from past and future). — David Mo

Again, both say the same thing.

Side note: the entire subject/object dichotomy (or mind/body) is likewise conceived within this mode (i.e., within the theoretical, present-at-hand). Only when one is taking away from everyday "coping," and looks out "objectively" at the world does the world become "substance" or "object," and thus the entity "looking out" becomes a "subject." When you're trying to catch the bus, this is not one's experience.

Heidegger's argument synthesized: Truth is presented to Parmenides > It is something that is presented as pure presence independent of the practical relationship that one may have > It is the truth about something (Being) > Being is now (present)> It is contemplated in the mode of Time. — David Mo

No. Truth is "there," it opens, it is "disclosed." Aletheia is the truth. The goddess is the truth. It's not "contemplated" -- I don't know where you came up with this one, because it's not in Heidegger. The truth is aletheia -- unconcealment, disclosure. Indeed it must occur in the "present" -- because Parmenides is a human being. Unless he "stepped outside" of life itself, whatever he "saw" happened in the present. Unless he's an angel. Everything happens in the "present" -- the rest is separated by thinking, and has a long history which, as you know, has largely been determined by the Physics of Aristotle, which interprets "time" as a sequence of "nows." Which is a perfectly fine conception, and a very powerful one -- just as the mind/body, subject/object distinction is. Just as "substance" and "nature" is. Just as modern science is.

So yes, if Parmenides was a human being -- and not a magical angel -- he lived and breathed as a human being, and whatever he experienced was experienced "in time" (not the time of physics, but experienced time, which in Heidegger is "temporality"). So of course it's in the "present."

Critical analysis:

Heidegger's first omission: Parmenides does not “contemplate” Being. — David Mo

Nice job knocking down the pins you yourself set up. But since it's not what Heidegger is saying, completely irrelevant. Might as well be playing chess with yourself and congratulating yourself on the win.

Parmenides is taught by the Goddess. (Suppose the Goddess is a metaphor. Instead, we could suppose that Parmenides is giving a theological content to his poem and the presence of the Goddess is literal. This is not the general interpretation nor Heidegger's - I think - so I overlook it). — David Mo

You "think"? Heidegger is emphatically against the interpretation of the goddess as "literal." (Parmenides, p. 8-11; 14-16). "To make of 'the truth' a goddess amounts to turning the mere not on of something, namely the concept of the essence of truth, in a 'personality.'" (p.10)

In the non/theological context of the poem, what the figure of the Goddess means is an illumination. — David Mo

Yes. It is illumination (or un-concealedness) itself.

The Goddess does not induce Parmenides to the contemplation/presence of any object of knowledge, as Heidegger claims. — David Mo

Where is Heidegger claiming this? I'll save you the trouble: he doesn't. Another straw man. You're confusing the fact that what is revealed is revealed in the "present" must mean that "being" becomes a present-at-hand "object" -- this is not the case. As I said before, everything happens in the present, whether we're aware of it or not (off thinking about the future or the past). Just introspect or meditate for a while and see for yourself. What "time" is it? It's now -- the present. Not "now" as an object-point, not "now" as a second hand on a clock.

This is why I say you're not on the level to understand Heidegger -- there's too much more reading you have to do.

The Goddess leads Parmenides to the truth not by the presence of something, but by the force of a logical reasoning: Only Being is and non-being is not (variant of the identity principle). — David Mo

Logical reasoning? This is your interpretation?

Therefore, Heidegger's identification of Parmenides' vision in the literal sense is out of place. There is no presence, no temporality. Parmenides’ thought is produced outside of time and the narration of the poem is a mytho-poetic artifice. — David Mo

Almost laughable. "Outside of time," eh? So Parmenides was an angel. "No presence, no temporality" -- so no human being, either. Where exactly did this "logical reasoning" take place, then? In heaven? Clearly not in the 6th century BC, as it was "outside of time" (both temporality and world-time, apparently). Come on.

It's fairly obvious you must be equating "time" with "motion" and "becoming," but even this view of time is contradictory in this context.

Second omission: This is riveted by the Goddess when she states that if the non-being is not there can be no change or time since it is impossible to move from something that is to what is not, or vice versa. Time is expressly refuted in Parmenides' poem. Being is one and immobile. — David Mo

The old "being and becoming" interpretation. :yawn:

Heidegger has a lot to say about this -- if you read him.

At the beginning of our discussion you tried to give me lessons because, according to you, I did not read Heidegger directly but through second-hand sources. Now you are going to Wikipedia, which is not a second-hand font. It's fourth or fifth hand. It's fun. But where have you put your principles? — David Mo

I said it was due to time constraints. You asked what "presence-at-hand" means, which I've talked about before and which, had you read Heidegger, you'd know. Rather than go through and type out relevant paragraphs, I thought the Wikipedia article was accurate and approved of it as at least an introduction to the term (if indeed you're not familiar with it).

Also, I'll thank you to give the name or the article when quoting an encyclopedia. It's the right way to do it and it helps to locate the exact citation. Also, this helps to find the original text. — David Mo

You're right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_of_presence

I have done the homework for you --you're welcome:

That is why Aristotle no longer ‘has any understanding’ of it [dialectics], for he has put it on a more radical footing and raised it to a new level [aufhob]. Légein itself--or rather noéin –, that simple awareness of something present-at-hand in its sheer presence-at-hand, which Parmenides had already taken to guide him in his own interpretation of Being-has the Temporal structure of a pure 'making-present' of something. Those entities which show themselves i n this and for it, and which are understood as entities in the most authentic sense, thus get interpreted with regard to the Present; that is, they are conceived as presence ( ousía ) . (B&T: 26/48) — David Mo

Funny you say that -- I quoted this text twice before in reference to Parmenides.

Now, you can explain this imbroglio between presence-at-hand, time and Parmenides and I will explain you where Heidegger conceals the very thought of Parmenides. In two points, at least. — David Mo

No imbroglio. The above says most of it. With regard to "time" (in terms of the common notion since Aristotle's essay), Heidegger will talk at length about. As the Wiki article mentions, correctly, he has a different analysis, which he calls "temporality."

In the beginning, phusis and logos meant something very different than what they meant later on in the inception. They both had to do with unconcealment, as an emerging and a gathering, respectively. This is where Parmenides began, with aletheia. As you know from reading Intro to Metaphysics, phusis became "idea" and logos became assertion/category, which Heidegger claims sets the stage for Being to be interpreted as "substance" and later "object," apart from the thinking subject. He will claim that the distinction (or "restriction") between "being and thinking" has dominated Western thought since (IM p. 208).

Specifically regarding Parmenides, pages 101-103 is a good start. From Parmenides (and the "inception") onwards, the question of being becomes concealed. A relevant passage below:

"Now the collapse of unconcealment, as we briefly call this happening, does not originate from a mere deficiency, from an inability to sustain any longer that which, with this essence, was given to historical humanity to preserve. The ground of the collapse lies first in the greatness of the inception and in the essence of the inception itself. ["Fall" and "collapse" create an illusion of negativity only in a superficial exposition.]" (IM p. 204)

Notice the part in brackets -- it's as if he's specifically talking to someone like yourself.

In any case, Parmenides is still "presencing," and this is why the "ground of the collapse" was embedded in the inception. It's not meant as a criticism, but as a description (interpretation) of history. It's also much different from later interpretations and questioning, and one in which we should return. Why? Because Parmenides "indicates Being itself in view of Being and from within Being" (IM p. 102). Still, the seeds of concealment were there from the beginning: "...in the inception of Western philosophy, the perspective that guides the opening up of Being is time, but in such a way that this perspective as such still remained and had to remain concealed." (IM p. 220) The underline is mine.

This is why "time" becomes relevant. An interesting thesis, worth mulling over. None of this can be understood fully if taken in isolation. You have to first take up Heidegger's terminology, which his difficult. You're simply not at that stage yet.

I would like to save intelligent young people some time. You can forgo Heidegger, he was essentially something very strange (a philosophical mystic?). — JerseyFlight

Says many other people who haven't read a word of Heidegger. I'll save intelligent people more time: before forming an opinion about a thinker, best to read him carefully. Otherwise, best not to comment.

He does indeed interpret being in temporal terms -- not in the common understanding of "time," but in "presencing" (as Heidegger mentions) in terms of the present-at-hand
— Xtrix
Can you define what this "presence-at-hand" is and what it has to do with time and Parmenides? — David Mo

Presence-at-hand (Vorhandenheit) means the theoretical attitude we take when viewing the world, detached from everyday involvement and engagement. It's the basis for science but also for (Western) philosophy -- it emphasizes things as they are present before for us, as something to analyze, as a problem, etc. Normally this occurs when a piece of equipment (e.g., a hammer) breaks down -- it stops becoming something we use transparently, and now becomes an object with properties that we must fix. Ditto a car, bicycle, computer, etc.

Shamefully, due to time constraints, I'll quote Wikipedia, as in this case they're pretty accurate:

In Being and Time (1927; transl. 1962), Martin Heidegger argues that the concept of time prevalent in all Western thought has largely remained unchanged since the definition offered by Aristotle in the Physics. Heidegger says, "Aristotle's essay on time is the first detailed Interpretation of this phenomenon [time] which has come down to us. Every subsequent account of time, including Henri Bergson's, has been essentially determined by it."[2] Aristotle defined time as "the number of movement in respect of before and after".[3] By defining time in this way Aristotle privileges what is present-at-hand, namely the "presence" of time. Heidegger argues in response that "entities are grasped in their Being as 'presence'; this means that they are understood with regard to a definite mode of time – the 'Present'".[2] Central to Heidegger's own philosophical project is the attempt to gain a more authentic understanding of time. Heidegger considers time to be the unity of three ecstases: the past, the present, and the future. —

Heidegger sees Parmenides as already conducting his thinking on this background of the present-at-hand.

Parmenides thinks being, but is still guided in his interpretation of it by temporality (as anyone has to be, as Dasein -- who's meaning is temporality), in the sense of "presencing", which has dominated ever since.
— Xtrix

Look at my previous comment to Gregory. Parmenides does not think in terms of temporality since Being is immobile and eternal. — David Mo

He does indeed interpret being in temporal terms -- not in the common understanding of "time," but in "presencing" (as Heidegger mentions) in terms of the present-at-hand, he certainly does. Heidegger believes this is the ontological structure of Dasein, who asks the question of being. It's not a criticism of Parmenides, who was a human being.

"Temporality" (in Heidegger) does not equate with "becoming" or have anything to do with "mobility."

You misinterpret the quote about the Olympics. — David Mo

No, you're misinterpreting it. Again:

"Since the essence of man, for the Greeks, is not determined as subject, a knowledge of the historical beginning of the Occident is difficult and unsettling for modern "thought," assuming that modern "lived experience" is not simply interpreted back into the Greek world, as if modern man enjoyed a relation of personal intimacy with Hellenism for the simple reason that he organizes "Olympic games" periodically in the main cities of the planet. For here only the facade of the borrowed word is Greek. This is not in any way meant to be derogatory toward the Olympics themselves; it is only censorious of the mistaken opinion that they bear any relation to the Greek essence."

He is using the Olympics as an example only, to demonstrate our distance from the Greeks (hence why "modern 'thought'" finds it difficult to comprehend the Greek's notion of the essence of man -- as it was not "determined as subject.").

I don't see anything controversial or very hard to understand about the above passage.

Heidegger does not think that the solution lies in simply repeating the thought of the Greeks. Like all attempts, including his own, they do not definitively resolve the question of being. But their approach to them is closer to the fundamental question of any thought, then he recommends that we must go back to take it as a starting point for a new beginning. — David Mo

Approach to "them"? I'm not sure about what that refers to -- the problems of philosophy generally?

Regardless, I'm glad you agree. We need to go back to the beginning in order to find new horizons.

Because while an interpretation may very well be perverted regarding it's interpretation of what the Greeks originally believed (and hence "wrong" as incorrect, inaccurate, etc), in and of itself it is just as "valid" to interpret Being as "God,"
— Xtrix

Greek thought is not wrong like that of metaphysics in general. But I doubt that Heidegger thought it was "valid" to interpret Being as God. Heidegger's theological position in his final stage is confusing enough to reach any convincing conclusions. His followers have found in it a poetic license or a theology. It may be one or the other. But I don't think there is a quote in Being and Time that supports the idea you expound. I'm almost certain of it. Nor later either, except in some marginal writing. Can you provide a quotation on this? It would be interesting to discuss this subject. — David Mo

Perhaps "valid" is the wrong word. It depends of course on what we mean by "God," which as you know is a complicated history. I don't think that Spinoza's God or Anselm's God would "bother" him much. But who knows -- the only point is that this is one possible interpretation, and one word for basically the same thing (using the philosopher's notion, not an invisible sky-father) as "being," as an infinite entity of some kind.

Heidegger is not against science or technology. He's not against God or substance, either.
— Xtrix

In short, the difference between the correct ontology of the Greeks and the erroneous one of the later metaphysicists is well condensed in this quotation:

Because something ontical is made to underlie the ontological, the expression "substantia" functions sometimes with a signification which is ontological, sometimes with one which is ontical, but mostly with one which is hazily ontico-ontological. Behind this slight difference of signification, however, there lies hidden a failure to master the basic problem of Being. To treat this adequately, we must 'track down' the equivocations in the right way. (94/127) — David Mo

You're simply misreading it. But I feel like we're going in circles, and it's boring. Interpret it your way; I remain unconvinced.

Got it.

Peterson has no model of anything. It'll change as the wind blows. Total pseudo-intellectualism and charlatanism. Has many strident followers, I'm sure. So does Trump. If you take it seriously, that's your business.

I think time is better spent elsewhere.
— Xtrix

That is just the knowledge I am trying to get at, how did you determine this? — JerseyFlight

How do I determine that time is better spent doing something other than "debating" people on an Internet forum? Because I'm an adult. Take your Socratic questioning elsewhere -- I'm bored.

Yes, as long as we don't make that the full time job. If we chase every crazy claim, "debating" and "refuting," etc., we go nowhere. It's best to have a positive direction, a plan, a better way of life, a better way of thinking, etc., and let people join in with that -- questioning ourselves and correcting mistakes along the way, but not getting sidetracked by "debunking" things (unless there's a real chance that it helps). The same is true of "debate" -- a ridiculous concept, really.
— Xtrix

What positive direction do you believe in? — fdrake

Depends on what we're supposedly reacting against. If it's climate denial, for example, simply present the evidence -- that's a positive direction forward. If its pseudo-intellectualism, then counter it with actual intellectualism (re: Peterson), etc. Not complicated.

What other people like him could I follow? — rickyk95

Noam Chomsky -- superior in almost every way. A true intellectual. I love Sam, but he only approaches Chomsky's level.

Then clearly you assign a limit of time to effectiveness. This seems most strange to me, as I am still being affected by thinkers who are long dead that never even spoke to me. Also, this must mean, if one cannot "see it," then it must not be there, but what if it is there, but one cannot see it? What if one's intellectual labor only bears fruit in the distant future? Clearly you would not call this an impossibility? It would seem the history of culture stands against it. What if the intellectual decided not to speak because he could not see that his work would have value in the future? It seems you are simply telling me to order my intellectual life according to what I feel? — JerseyFlight

:yawn:

If you want to spend your time arguing with people about Jordan Peterson on an Internet forum, you're welcome to. Maybe little things like that help, and someone has to do it I suppose. I do not recommend it, however -- I think time is better spent elsewhere.

Cheers.

When he's talking to those who can think and hear.
— Xtrix

How does he know when this is the case? And further, does this have to happen within a set perimeter of time? — JerseyFlight

You'll know when you see it. If you're not able to tell, then you're the one who can't think. There are no recipes or algorithms or equations to figure it out.

As per your revision: "Also, it's a relative thing -- it may not be a complete waste to teach someone something for 10 years, and then finally have them understand it or change their mind."

If it is a relative thing then how do you know what you're talking about? I thought I heard you say, "they're really just wasting their time -- no one is changing their minds and nothing is getting done." How do you know this? — JerseyFlight

See above. True, maybe there's some use in banging your head against a brick wall as well. How do you know for certain it won't do any good? Etc.

But much like political hobbyism, one can think they're doing a great deal when they're really just wasting their time
— Xtrix

How does a thinker know when he's not wasting time? — JerseyFlight

When he's talking to those who can think and hear. Also, it's a relative thing -- it may not be a complete waste to teach someone something for 10 years, and then finally have them understand it or change their mind. But compared to other endeavors, perhaps it's not the best use of one's time.

I agree, we do need to do all these things. But we must also refute error, if we do not it will gain simply because it's attempt to deceive goes unchallenged and the ignorant have no defense against it. As intellectuals we have a social responsibility in this direction. — JerseyFlight

Yes, as long as we don't make that the full time job. If we chase every crazy claim, "debating" and "refuting," etc., we go nowhere. It's best to have a positive direction, a plan, a better way of life, a better way of thinking, etc., and let people join in with that -- questioning ourselves and correcting mistakes along the way, but not getting sidetracked by "debunking" things (unless there's a real chance that it helps). The same is true of "debate" -- a ridiculous concept, really.



No -- Sizek is another posturing charlatan.

Turns out, most people are -- we already have the numbers in this country and around the world. Better to shore up these people and get to work collectively than bother with a minority of those who are too far gone to be rescued.
— Xtrix

Here, my friend, your optimism is misplaced. — JerseyFlight

No, it isn't. Because it's not about optimism or pessimism -- it's just a matter of fact: we have the numbers. On almost every issue, from climate change to nuclear weapons to healthcare to Jordan Peterson and QAnon (in the last two cases, the vast majority disapprove).

Hitler brought himself into power through the zealous actions of a minority. Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman shifted the entire nature of American economics in the direction of capitalism. When they were on the scene intellectuals said the same things about them that you are now saying about Peterson. Our resistance to this kind of stuff matters. I do not do it because it brings me pleasure or I have some kind of obsession, I do it because ideology is dangerous, it destroys lives and sabotages democratic freedom, paving the way to irreparable systems of violence. — JerseyFlight

Like I said, it's fine to do if you think it's beneficial. But much like political hobbyism, one can think they're doing a great deal when they're really just wasting their time -- no one is changing their minds and nothing is getting done. Better to seek real power in terms of politics, and to organize with like-minded individuals (of which there are many) to enact real change and prevent the next Hitler or Friedman or whomever.

The attitude you embody, though it truly does come from a place of higher critical intelligence, fails to see that Peterson is doing damage in culture. Whether one likes it or not, he has become relevant, people are influenced by him, they look up to him and see him as the very thing he is not, an intellectual example. When intellectuals like yourself withdraw from the advancing public discourse, the narrative is lost to people like Peterson, it regresses. — JerseyFlight

Maybe. But you could say the same about many other issues as well -- Creationism, QAnon conspiracies, 9/11 truthers, Anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, etc. If we spend all of our time doing battle with this nonsense, we'll never move on. It's a bottomless bit. We'd have better luck trying to argue people out of Christianity or Islam -- which is to say, very little.

It's a strange phenomenon these days: once someone has locked into a dogma, it's like a black hole -- there's no coming out of it. One wonders what attracts people to these black holes in the first place, but that's why we need to stick to rational argument, evidence, science, etc. -- and hope most people are sane enough to accept reality. Turns out, most people are -- we already have the numbers in this country and around the world. Better to shore up these people and get to work collectively than bother with a minority of those who are too far gone to be rescued.

Bravo. Exactly right. But still not worth your time writing it.

My advice: don't waste any time on Jordan Peterson, whether as criticism or not. Better off digging a ditch and filling it back up.

has nothing to do with your claim. Why? Because here Heidegger is talking about Dasein, and specifically about how to analyze it
— Xtrix
I'm sorry to say you didn't understand the meaning of my quote. I had included it so that you would see that your idea that Heidegger does not speak of a knowledge, interpretation, etc. that is "right" is false. The term "right", although rarely used in Being and Time, also appears in the sense of "correct".


I take this opportunity to remind you that Dasein's Being is the center of the research on Being in the mentioned book, to the point that it displaces other considerations of Being.
"Understanding of Being is itself a definite characteristic of Dasein's Being". (T&B: 12/32) — David Mo

Yes? I really don't see what you're driving at anymore.

I'm not doing an exegesis of Heidegger, but a critique. This criticism refers to his use and abuse of language. If he says that to understand is not to know, I would think it was nonsense. Can you separate the two things? — David Mo

I think you can, yes. One may speak of an "understanding" of driving or hammering. To claim that these activities, when conducted in a ready-to-hand manner (in a sense "unconsciously" or transparently), involve "knowledge" is misleading. Because to "know" something, traditionally, is something a conscious, thinking mind does or has. But what if the thinking mind were playing no part whatsoever in the activity? So that one does not need to "recall" knowledge or even be thinking about what one is doing at all. Should we still call this "knowledge"? Ultimately, we have to ask what is meant by "knowledge," and that takes us into history and etymology. Which is why I mentioned using the word is complicated and why Heidegger eschews it.

Or we can interpret this as his saying "The Greeks had the truth of being,
— Xtrix

Who said that? I am not. It is one thing for them to be closer to the knowledge of Being and another for them to have the knowledge of Being. My on words: "If the truth is the unveiling of Being, the Presocratics were much closer to it". — David Mo

I understand. But again, what on earth is "knowledge of Being"? Again, this leads us off into Heidegger's (unconventional) definitions of "truth" and "knowledge." I suppose if truth is unconealedness, than the early Greeks were perhaps less "concealing" of being, and hence somehow (in this idiosyncratic usage) "more in the truth" than others -- but I don't see Heidegger ever really saying that explicitly. I can see now where you might think that, but again it comes down to textual evidence. I don't see it in Being and Time or in Heidegger generally, as you do, but we have to ask ourselves if this is a better way to think about it. I think it just shows that the Greeks and the later Greeks (and then Romans and Christians) had very different meanings for "truth," and nothing more. Interpretations on truth, like that on "being," "time," or any of the other (originally Greek) concepts and words, are varied and evolve in time (in history).

If Heidegger makes any kind of value judgment, I think he does so in relation to the questioning of being. The questioning was greatest with the originary thinkers, he believes. He often says that the inception was the greatest era, and it ended with Plato and Aristotle (thus they are part of this great inception), and that it has "degenerated' ever since in terms of the core aim of philosophy (ontology), which is the question of being. But I do not believe he thinks of this in terms of "right and wrong" or "true and false," even in his own usage.

He does, however, believe the results of various understandings (results in terms of what "shows up" in a culture which holds this understanding/interpretation of being), which he says in our own epoch have resulted in technological nihilism (chasing of beings without any grounding in or sense of being whatsoever), are certainly open to moral judgment -- and if we consider our present age as "bad" in the Nietzschean sense of "decline," then we must overcome it by overcoming what has led to it, which is our traditional, philosophical/religious "background." This is background goes back to the Greeks and, however great they were and however great the "inception" is, it still needs to be examined and ultimately overcome (although we at least need to first get back to their questioning, which we don't even do anymore).

If the truth is the unveiling of Being, — David Mo

It isn't.
— Xtrix
It is. — David Mo

Truth is what is unconcealed. Only beings become unconcealed. Being itself isn't an object to be un-concealed. If you mean that being permeates all beings, and is "revealed" in its being-ness through beings, then yes, truth is the unveiling of Being. I wonder if that's what you meant, though.

We are not discussing the meaning of Heidegger's philosophy, but a series of partial issues that do not need the understanding of time to be resolved.

The preeminence of Greek thought.
The concept of truth.
The criticism of Western metaphysics. — David Mo

Time is related to all three.

To bring up the subject of time now is to try to deflect the question. — David Mo

No, it's to show that you don't understand the entire context of Heidegger's thinking. I do this only to demonstrate why you're so often misunderstanding various passages.

And no, Parmenides is not "guided by things." The claim in that passage is that he is guided by legein, or "noein," which is the simple awareness of something present-at-hand.
— Xtrix
Heidegger calls this mode of Being presence-at-hand, and he sometimes refers to present-at-hand entities as ‘Things’.
— Wheeler, Michael, Martin Heidegger, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Is it clear enough?
As you can see in the previous text, present-at-hand is equivalent to beings or things in the empirical world.
For Parmenides there are two different ways of knowledge: that of reason and that of opinion. The one of reason affirms that only the Being exists. That of opinion says that multiple and different things exist, but this is what the Goddess advises against as mere appearance.
Heidegger says that Parmenides is guided by things (“presents-at-hand”; see above!). There is a contradiction with Parmenides’ theory that he does not explain.
That from the things present-at-hand cannot be passed to Being or Dasein, is clearly expressed in a text that we have already commented. — David Mo

As I've said before, this is actually difficult and interesting. You bring up a good point and it's now given me pause. Here's my take: presence-at-hand is the mode of being of objects (things), yes. But it's certainly true that Parmenides also thinks/questions Being "in general", not simply beings (things). That has to be true, based on everything we've seen Heidegger say about Parmenides. I'm sure you agree. So while later thinkers may interpret Being as A being, as a "thing" like a substance or God or the totality of things in "nature," Parmenides thinks being, but is still guided in his interpretation of it by temporality (as anyone has to be, as Dasein -- who's meaning is temporality), in the sense of "presencing", which has dominated ever since.

I can't say for certain if Heidegger is clear on this, because I haven't read all of the "Parmenides" lectures. He certainly does revere Parmenides, and wants us to get back to this "great inception" and to the questioning of Being, but I think it's also true that he believes we need to do so in order to overcome it, as this is the "birth certificate" of our tradition, which dominates to this very day.

You most certainly can, because that's in essence the heart of Western philosophy: presence. Heidegger says so himself -- i.e., that this has been how Being has been interpreted since the early Greeks.
— Xtrix
And perverted because of its interpretation as substance.

Greece after the Presocratics, Rome, the Middle Ages, modernity—has asserted a metaphysics and, therefore, is placed in a specific relationship to what-is as a whole. Metaphysics inquires about the being of beings, but it reduces being to a being; it does not think of being as being. Insofar as being itself is obliterated in it, metaphysics is nihilism. The metaphysics of Plato is no less nihilistic than that of Nietzsche. Consequently, Heidegger tries to demonstrate the nihilism of metaphysics in his account of the history of being, which he considers as the history of being’s oblivion. His attempt to overcome metaphysics is not based on a common-sense positing of a different set of values or the setting out of an alternative worldview, but rather is related to his concept of history, the central theme of which is the repetition of the possibilities for existence. This repetition consists in thinking being back to the primordial beginning of the West—to the early Greek experience of being as presencing—and repeating this beginning, so that the Western world can begin anew.
— W. J. Korab-Karpowicz: Martin Heidegger (1889—1976), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

*********** — David Mo

OK, try to hear me: I'm distinguishing between two claims. One is that every interpretation of being (including as "substance") since the early Greeks is essentially "wrong," and the other is that the Greek understanding of being has been "perverted," "diminished," etc. I agree he says the latter, I disagree about the former. Why? Because while an interpretation may very well be perverted regarding it's interpretation of what the Greeks originally believed (and hence "wrong" as incorrect, inaccurate, etc), in and of itself it is just as "valid" to interpret Being as "God," -- or Brahmin, for that matter (in Hinduism). Despite nothing like what the Greeks meant, these interpretations are nevertheless essentially Greek. Heidegger says this many times. So if they're "perverted," there's also something fundamentally "Greek" about them as well. What is it that's remained? That temporal standpoint -- the interpreting of Being in terms of time (namely, the present). This is why I keep bringing up time.

So it does no good to say "Descartes has a perverted interpretation of Being," or anything like that -- unless it's in comparison to what the Greeks believed (according to Heidegger) and described as "phusis," just as our later sense of "truth" is perverted in this case. Doesn't that mean logic is "wrong" or perverted? I don't think so, no. Nor is science, for that matter. Heidegger is not against science or technology. He's not against God or substance, either. But he is against looking back at the Greeks and interpreting them as being the "first scientists" retroactively, holding our current conceptions in mind. That's a completely wrong thing to do.

Maybe that helps. Again, fairly trivial because even if we go with your interpretation, what makes the early Greeks "right" besides their questioning? Because they too interpret Being as "presence," according to Heidegger. We should go back to them in order to shake off our pre-conceptions and all the baggage of our tradition so that we may "begin anew," as Korab-Karpowicz correctly says above -- but I don't think he's according that any ultimate truth lies in their interpretation.

There is a very simple question that you will never answer: What is the difference between being wrong and being blind and hiding the question that really matters? Is not the wrong question a mistake that prevents you from giving the right answer? — David Mo

I tried answering above. I don't think there *IS* a "right answer." If we are really doing ontology, then the aim of ontology is the question of being, so in that case to question being is the "correct" method of ontology (phenomenology). The early Greeks had the question right, and so were doing ontology -- their answers aren't a matter of right or wrong, however. So, again, is science "wrong" in its answers? Not at all. But it does not ask the question of being -- it studies beings (entities, things). According to you, all of science would be "wrong" because it doesn't question being. I do not see Heidegger saying that, nor do I think you believe that. Science never claims to be ontology. Even if it did, it wouldn't falsify its answers and results.

Two relevant passage:

"Since the essence of man, for the Greeks, is not determined as subject, a knowledge of the historical beginning of the Occident is difficult and unsettling for modern "thought," assuming that modern "lived experience" is not simply interpreted back into the Greek world, as if modern man enjoyed a relation of personal intimacy with Hellenism for the simple reason that he organizes "Olympic games" periodically in the main cities of the planet. For here only the facade of the borrowed word is Greek. This is not in any way meant to be derogatory toward the Olympics themselves; it is only censorious of the mistaken opinion that they bear an relation to the Greek essence." (Parmenides, p 165 -- emphasis mine) —

Replace "Olympics" here with "logic," "truth," "substance," etc. The same applies -- our modern conceptions are NOT Greek, just as our modern Olympics are not (except in word only), but in themselves they're fine. Heidegger only is "censorious" of the attributing to the Greeks this modern meaning and thus to the belief that what we believe is what the Greeks believed.

"In thus demonstrating the origin of our basic ontological concepts by an investigation in which their 'birth certificate' is displayed, we have nothing to do with a viscous relativizing of ontological standpoints. But this destruction is just as far from having the negative sense of shaking off the ontological tradition. We must, on the contrary, stake out the positive possibilities of that tradition, and this always means keeping it within its limits; these in turn are given facticly in the way the question is formulated at the time, and in the way the possible field for investigation is thus bounded off. On its negative side, this destruction does not relate itself towards the past; its criticism is aimed at 'today' and at the prevalent way of treating the history of ontology, whether it is headed towards doxography, towards intellectual history, or towards a history of problems. But to bury the past in nullity is not the purpose of this destruction; its aim is positive; its negative function remains unexpressed and indirect." B/T p. 23/44 —

Remember that "Basically, all ontology, no matter how rich and firmly compacted a system of categories it has at its disposal, remains blind and per­ verted from its ownmost aim, if it has not first adequately clarified the meaning of Being, and conceived this clarification as its fundamental task".
I bet you are unable to answer this simple and straightforward question without beating about the bush. — David Mo

Ok, straightforward answer: there is no difference. But where we apply "wrong" and "blind" is what matters. Do we apply it to science? I don't think we do. Do we apply it to ontology? Yes, in the context of it's goal. So if we define ontology's "aim" as clarifying the meaning of Being, and it doesn't do so, then it is indeed "blind and perverted to its ownmost aim." I don't see how we can jump from this to saying "Descartes' interpretation of Being as essentially ens infitinum is wrong, blind and perverted." It's a powerful ontology, and a very useful one-- at least in terms of the mind/body, subject/object duality (which is still a dominant view in the sciences). It does overlook a number of things, but so do the early Greeks (they overlook their guiding line of temporality). It is also hampered by much more traditional baggage and rather than question being, it 'takes over' a medieval understanding of being.

The sciences are also limited and also don't raise the ontological question. Does this make it all "wrong"? No. Does it make Descartes interpretations "wrong"? Again, I don't think so -- because what would be right? Phusis is "right" and the res cogitans is "wrong"? I don't think so. Furthermore, Heidegger never puts it like this.

Most people voted "don't care." You really should. The science is pretty clear about what humanity is facing, and it will effect all of us and all of our children. I'm talking specifically about climate change. This election is too important not to care.

Anyway, your maniacal repetition that Heidegger does not present the understanding of Being in the sense of right and wrong, is strongly refuted by this little phrase:

Only by presenting this entity in the right way can we have any understanding of its Being. No matter how provisional our analysis may be, it always requires the assurance that we have started correctly.
— Heidegger: (T&B, 43/69) — David Mo

Thankfully, because I have read Being and Time multiple times, especially part 1, it's very easy for me to see -- without even looking at it -- that this, once again, has nothing to do with your claim. Why? Because here Heidegger is talking about Dasein, and specifically about how to analyze it -- namely, through phenomenology, which he argues is the proper method for doing so. A couple of sentences above, which you deliberately leave out:


"Dasein does not have the kind of being which belongs to something merely present-at-hand within the world, nor does it ever have it. So neither is it to be presented thematically as something we come across in the same way as we come across what is present-at-hand. The right way of presenting it is so far from self-evident that to determine what form it shall take is itself an essential part of the ontological analytic of this entity. Only by presenting this entity in the right way..." [Italics mine -- p 43/68-69)


So again, that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the "pre-ontological understanding of Being," it has to do with the method of analyzing Dasein; furthermore, it has absolutely nothing to do with the claim that Western metaphysics (philosophy) is "wrong" ("in the main"). Even if Heidegger had believed what you're projecting onto him, this quotation tells us nothing about it.

It's almost as if you're searching for something to prove your thesis, context be damned. My suggestion: try reading the first two introductions in their entirety. And then read them again. It's helpful to do so. Stop combing the first 100 pages for something that proves your thesis -- you won't find it. Trust me. Why? Because it isn't there, and never has been. You're misunderstanding Heidegger.

There is no "knowledge of the truth" mentioned, at all.
— Xtrix

It is impossible to understand something without having knowledge about it. If the early Greeks had a primordial understanding of the question of Being, they knew something important about it, which lost the later metaphysics. This is Heidegger’s Bible. — David Mo

He doesn't use the word "knowledge" for many reasons, as I mentioned above. Mainly because it's been understood, since a least Descartes and the dominance of epistemology, in the context of a subject "knowing" an object. But leaving that aside -- it's quite true that the early Greeks questioned Being, and that this questioning has been forgotten.

I'm not sure why "Bible" comes into play, besides being part of your project to paint Heidegger as a closet Christian who wants to set himself up as philosophy's savior. Which is very strange.

n the age of the first and definitive unfolding of Western philosophy among the Greeks, when questioning about beings as such and as a whole received its true inception, beings were called phusis.
This fundamental Greek word for beings is usually translated as "nature." We use the Latin translation natura, which really means "to be born," ''birth." But with this Latin translation, the originary content of the Greek word phusis is already thrust aside, the authentic philosophical naming force of the Greek word is destroyed. This is true not only of the Latin translation of this word but of all other translations of Greek philosophical language into Roman — Heidegger: ItM:10/14

I noticed you bolded the first "true," but not the second. Might as well bold the word any time he uses it -- it would be just as relevant. Which is to say, not at all.

The above is absolutely correct. The fact that you believe this supports your thesis is baffling. I've said over and over again that translations can certainly be "wrong."

If we pay attention to what has been said, then we will discover the inner connection between Being and seeming. But we can grasp this connection fully only if we understand "Being" in a correspondingly originary way, and here this means in a Greek way. — Ibid:76/106

Absolutely.

Heidegger never puts it as "truth of being."
— Xtrix
With those or similar words he says it repeatedly. — David Mo

No; he doesn't.

If the truth is the unveiling of Being, — David Mo

It isn't.

That's why Heidegger comes back and interprets his texts over and over again. If not, why does he do it? Is it not because he hopes to regain a path (beginning or way in his words) that has been lost? — David Mo

Yes, he hopes to re-awaken the question of the meaning of Being, which the early Greeks had and which has since been forgotten. Their interpretation of Being as "presence," however, is exactly what permeates all of Western thought, through multiple variations. So what gets lost/degenerated? The questioning itself. Which we should return to by understanding our tradition's origins in Parmenides/Heraclitus/Anaximander.

Or we can interpret this as his saying "The Greeks had the truth of being, and the truth has been lost." But this isn't supported by the text.

Aquinas is just as "wrong" as Parmenides. They both view being as something present-at-hand.
— Xtrix

Absolutely not. I have you presented a Heidegger's text against the perversion of Parmenides and Heraclitus by the Latin metaphysics (see above). Aquinas is a perfect example of substantialism that is the main concealment of Being in the Medieval philosophy. You cannot put them at the same level. — David Mo

You most certainly can, because that's in essence the heart of Western philosophy: presence. Heidegger says so himself -- i.e., that this has been how Being has been interpreted since the early Greeks. Thus, if substantialism is "wrong," then Parmenides is fundamentally "wrong" as well. You see how silly this reading of Heidegger is, I think.

Neither are "wrong." Parmenides questioned being; Aquinas was stuck in a tradition laid down by the Greeks, as was all of Scholasticism. In that sense, Parmenides is clearly the more "originary" thinker.

Heidegger says (T&B: 26/48) that Parmenides is guided by things for his interpretation of Being. Let us leave aside that this phrase is quite strange, since Parmenides denies the existence of everything that is not the unique Being. — David Mo

"Denies the existence of everything"? Everything has being. All that "exists" has being. Whatever "is" has being. What you're talking about is incoherent. The phrase "the unique Being" is also completely meaningless.

And no, Parmenides is not "guided by things." The claim in that passage is that he is guided by legein, or "noein," which is the simple awareness of something present-at-hand. This of course has the temporal structure of "making present." Once again, presence is emphasized -- just as I had indicated above. Later, beings are conceived as ousia. This is all right in the very passage you cite.

About the presence-at-hand things you should read this.

Heidegger, then, denies that the categories of subject and object characterize our most basic way of encountering entities. He maintains, however, that they apply to a derivative kind of encounter. When Dasein engages in, for example, the practices of natural science, when sensing takes place purely in the service of reflective or philosophical contemplation, or when philosophers claim to have identified certain context-free metaphysical building blocks of the universe (e.g., points of pure extension, monads), the entities under study are phenomenologically removed from the settings of everyday equipmental practice and are thereby revealed as fully fledged independent objects, that is, as the bearers of certain context-general determinate or measurable properties (size in metres, weight in kilos etc.). Heidegger calls this mode of Being presence-at-hand, and he sometimes refers to present-at-hand entities as ‘Things’.
— Wheeler, Michael, Martin Heidegger, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — David Mo

That's absolutely right. I prefer "entities" over "things," but the point is the same.

That is, a secondary knowledge because Being that is obviously not a “thing” and the knowledge of Being is the sine quanon condition, the most universal, etc. As Heidegger is never clear I am not sure if presence-at-hand and readiness-to-hand knowledge can be preliminary steps to Being. But what they are not is the primordial knowledge that conditions everything else, that is, the knowledge of Being. — David Mo

(1) It's not "knowledge" at all. Stop projecting your own words -- Heidegger eschews them for good reason.

(2) "Preliminary steps to Being" is completely meaningless.

(3) What exactly are you arguing against? Being gets interpreted on the basis of time -- i.e., the present. Presence-at-hand is the mode of being we are in, as human beings, usually when things break down or we're in "reflective or philosophical contemplation," as Wheeler (correctly) says above. This mode of interpreting Being has been the dominant one since the beginning. This is the entire thesis. This is why the book is called "Being and Time." It has nothing to do with "knowledge," or "right and wrong," or "properties of Being," or some kind of ultimate, supreme, supernatural "force" out there that we can "know" somehow. All of that is added on by you, and is a complete misunderstanding.

...Oh, I forgot. I don't know what your cryptic reference to time is about. It's not what we're discussing. — David Mo

It's exactly what we're discussing, because we're discussing Heidegger, and you cannot possibly understand him if you don't understand his claims about time. It's not surprising you have no clue what it means. See (3) above.

Worth repeating:

"We have already intimated that Dasein has a pre-ontological Being as its optically 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." -- p. 17/39 —

Do you really understand this?

Xtrix,

Unsurprisingly, you did not respond to my question. — Gary M Washburn

Okay, I'll make it simple for you:

Uniqueness cannot exist in a Heideggerian world. — Gary M Washburn

No one is talking about "uniqueness." Absolutely no one. It wasn't mentioned here, it's not mentioned in Heidegger, and it has nothing to do with anything.

I didn't read the rest of your post. Learn to say something coherent in the first few lines -- otherwise I'm not interested in wasting my time on utter nonsense.

The Greeks did not have "knowledge of the truth" as if there's truth "out there" to be known.
— Xtrix

Later it becomes a matter of logos as assertion, as correct propositions and correspondence of that which is present-at-hand.
— Xtrix

Let us see:

At the same time, however, we must not overlook the fact that while this way of understanding Being (the way which is closest to us) is one which the Greeks were the first to develop as a branch of knowledge and to master, the primordial understanding of truth was simultaneously alive among them, even if pre-ontologically, and it even held its own against the concealment implicit in their ontology-at least in Aristotle.
— Heidegger: Being and Time, Oxford, 2001, p. 225/268

(I have highlighted in bold letter some words that may help you understand what you seem unable to understand). — David Mo

Says the person who doesn't understand.

How exactly you misinterpret this as going against what I was quoted saying above shows you really don't know what you're talking about. My statements stand.

There is no "knowledge of the truth" mentioned, at all. What he's talking about there is a pre-ontological understanding of being, a "primordial understanding of truth," which co-existed with what later evolved as assertion, correctness, etc. That's why he says this understanding "held its own" against the concealment implicit in their ontology. Do you know what that means? I'll give you a hint: it has something to do with time.

For Heidegger (except in his last phase of his life, which is not that of the text we are commenting) truth is revelation (aletheia). And the opposite of truth is concealment. The primordial truth is the truth of Being. — David Mo

Eh. Heidegger never puts it as "truth of being." The truth is unconcealedness, yes. This relates to logos and phusis, as well -- as gathering, emerging, enduring. An openness or disclosure of being.

That “primordial” means Heidegger's idea that Being can only be understood through what is everyday and "close" to us. That is not a subjective truth. It is the knowledge of something that is there. As the text clearly states, the early Greeks had an understanding of that truth in contrast to those who began to hide their ontology. Aristotle is mentioned in the text, although elsewhere Heidegger situates Plato as the first to begin the concealment. In this sense, the Aristotelian metaphysics and its consequences in all the western metaphysics are blind to the truth of Being. — David Mo

He doesn't say "knowledge," he says "understanding." "Knowledge" is also a loaded term, and thus he avoids it. There is a "sense" of a being that's pre-theoretical, pre-ontological, pre-epistemological, that we all have as human beings.

"Blind to the truth of being." No. But the question of being has been forgotten and concealed. In Plato and Aristotle, the question was still very much alive -- but the concealment was beginning to take root. See 'Restriction of Being' chapter of Introduction to Metaphysics.

Regardless, even Parmenides was "presencing." Heidegger wants to acknowledge that and attempt to get beyond it. So while the Greeks asked the question about being, and had a primordial understanding of truth, the seed was always there (necessarily) for concealment. In that sense, Aquinas is just as "wrong" as Parmenides. They both view being as something present-at-hand.

Basically, all ontology, no matter how rich and firmly compacted a system of categories it has at its disposal, remains blind and perverted from its ownmost aim, if it has not first adequately clarified the meaning of Being, and conceived this clarification as its fundamental task. (Being and Time p. 11/31; italics by Heidegger)

And that's why I asked you what it means to be blind to one thing. How can a philosophy that's blind to the most fundamental be "correct"? What the hell do you think it means to be blind? — David Mo

Here he is talking about ontology, particularly in relation to the sciences. Blind and perverted from its ownmost aim -- yes, that's true. This has nothing to do with your claim. Descartes and others do indeed clarify the meaning of being, but it's just a new variation on the tradition of presence. So "God" or the "res cogitans" are ontological interpretations, but within a tradition that Heidegger wants to get beyond. This doesn't mean they're "wrong" interpretations. Wrong would make no sense in this context. Why? Because there is no "right" way to interpret being. To translate it this way is pure confusion. Hence why he never claims this. There is certainly blind/misguided ways to do ontology, however -- for example, by not even clarifying the meaning of being, or not realizing that this is your "fundamental task." But this is in relation to what ontology's aim is -- which is the question of being. It's not a statement about the various interpretations of being in the history of Western philosophy. And it's certainly not saying they're all "wrong."

I wish, instead of beating around the bush, you'd answer this. And if you bring up your famous contexts, to explain what context might be there that makes being blind “correct”. — David Mo

I'm not saying it's correct. I'm also not saying the entire history of Western philosophy is "correct" either. See above. "Right" and "wrong" simply do not apply in this analysis. This is why he talks so much about hermeneutics -- the emphasis is on questioning, meaning, and interpretations. Not to go through them and point out how they're all "wrong," but to elucidate the various interpretations, how they've changed through time, and where they originated. This would have made up the second part of Being and Time, which was never published. Rather, see "Basic Problems of Phenomenology."

For a person who has spent many years studying Heidegger, you make primary mistakes. According Heidegger, present-at-hand is a deficient or secondary mode of knowledge. To put it as an example of “correct” knowledge is a macroscopic error on your part. — David Mo

I guarantee you that Heidegger never says "deficient." You and your true/false judgments are just childish. He will also NEVER describe it as a "mode of knowledge." This already shows how stuck you are in epistemology and analytic philosophy generally.

Regardless, I never once said that the present-at-hand is "correct" knowledge or anything like that. Yes, it is a founded mode of being. When things break down, etc. First and foremost, we're engaged, coping beings interacting with the world, with equipment and with each other.

Perhaps deign to read before launching accusations about "macroscopic" errors.

Some passages to chew on:

"Because Being cannot be grasped except by taking time into consideration, the answer to the question of Being cannot lie in any proposition that is blind and isolated. The answer is not properly conceived if what it asserts propositionally is just passed along, especially if it gets circulated as a free-floating result, so that we merely get informed about a 'standpoint' which may perhaps differ from the way this has hitherto been treated. Whether the answer is a 'new' one remains quite superficial and is of no importance. Its positive character must lie in its being ancient enough for us to learn to conceive the possibilities which the 'Ancients' have made ready for us. In its ownmost meaning this answer tells us that concrete ontological research must begin with an investigative inquiry which keeps within the horizon we have laid bare; and this is all that is tells us." - B&T p. 19/40

And here is essentially the entire book:

"We have already intimated that Dasein has a pre-ontological Being as its optically 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 understand 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 understand of Being, and in terms of temporality as the Being of Dasein, which understands Being." -- p. 17/39

No mention of "right" or "wrong," just a very clear thesis: up to the present day, time has been the horizon (the standpoint) of understanding and interpreting "being." Since the Greeks, this means parousia (presence); "idea" as prototype in Plato and "ousia" in Aristotle.

It's obvious why you want to ignore this and continue on about your childish point of "rightness" and "wrongness" (which is never in Heidegger, but which you want to try cramming in), but if you read this carefully it becomes obvious what's happening.

Or you can keep beleiving Heidegger thinks he's "right" and that almost everything else in Western philosophy is "in the main" simply "wrong." Go on framing it in that way if it helps you. Doesn't mean I have to take it seriously. Especially since you've given no evidence whatsoever that demonstrates it, other than pure misunderstanding of what he's talking about.

That's funny.

I really wish I could read it all in German!

The advent of beings lies in the destiny of being.
— Heidegger: Letter on Humanism, Op. Cit. p. 252

A property is nothing more than an attribute, a quality, like the ability to do something. If you say that X is y or that X possesses y, y is the property of X. Although Heidegger denies that Being is an entity like other entities, he attributes certain properties to it. — David Mo

No, he doesn't. Nor does he interpret or define being.

The "destiny of being" is meaningless until the context is provided. To believe Heidegger is treating "being" as an entity, or a being, and attaching a "destiny" to it as a property, is simply a mistake. Thinking being, interpreting being, etc., has a destiny -- Dasein has a destiny, and is historical. This is all related to his idea of time. It has nothing to do with an object with properties, which goes against everything he writes.

That advent of Being is the destiny that governs history. Notice that it is not beings that rule that destiny, but Being, which as such is placed as something different and above them. That is, supernatural. — David Mo

So now being is supernatural, according to you. "Different and above" beings? This makes no sense whatsoever.

Since being is not an object or a being, it is not "different and above" beings. The fact that any being is implies being. Another way to say it: Being (capitalized, for no reason) is the is-ness of any thing (any being) at all. You're continually getting confused about this. There is no set of "things" in the universe or nature and then Being, which is somehow "outside," "above," or "beyond" it all. If this is what comes to mind, it's a mistake.

Therefore, despite Heidegger's statement that Being is not God, he speaks of it in such a way that one cannot conclude but that it is a kind of divinity. Perhaps not a personalized god, but an entity of supernatural powers. — David Mo

Almost laughable. Stop reading secondary sources. If you want to pretend Heidegger is essetnially a crypto-Christian, that's your business.

Heidegger does not usually use the word "wrong". — David Mo

Exactly.

accuse someone of being blind or corrupting the matter is to be wrong. — David Mo

Someone? Who? Descartes? Kant? Aristotle?

Once again: translations have been wrong, or in error -- the way of Greeks understood beings (phusis) has been mistranslated and therefore misunderstood, corrupted, etc. That is far different from saying "the Christians were wrong and Parmenides was right," which is exactly what you want to interpret Heidegger as saying. "In the main." And you're wrong.

Any concealing or downgraded translation of Heraclitus and Parmenides in terms of substantia meant the loss of the right way of understanding Being. — David Mo

The "right way." It's almost laughable to put it like this.
— Xtrix
Well, you're laughing at Heidegger himself. — David Mo

Before even reading your quote, based on past behavior, I can predict that it will not contain anything like what you wrote above. Let's see...

The primordial phenomenon of truth has been covered up by Dasein' s very understanding of Being-that understanding which is proximally the one that prevails, and which even today has not been surmounted explicitly and in principle. At the same time, however, we must not overlook the fact that while this way of understanding Being (the way which is closest to us) is one which the Greeks were the first to develop as a branch of knowledge and to master, the primordial understanding of truth was simultaneously alive among them, even if pre-ontologically, and it even held its own against the concealment implicit in their ontology-at least in Aristotle. — Heidegger: Being and Time, Oxford, 2001, p. 225/268

Exactly.

It is clear from this text that the Greeks had a knowledge of truth that was later lost. That knowledge of truth is something like a way or pathway that was blocked. That this path was the right one and to which we must return Heidegger says so until he gets tired. It's absurd to have to repeat it so many times. — David Mo

It's absurd that you misinterpret this in such a way.

Here he is talking about truth as aletheia, which the early Greeks had and which we've lost. Why? Because our understanding of truth is much different, and phenomena get interpreted as something present-at-hand (one line above the cited passage).

The Greeks did not have "knowledge of the truth" as if there's truth "out there" to be known. Truth is unconcealment, an emerging (phusis). Later it becomes a matter of logos as assertion, as correct propositions and correspondence of that which is present-at-hand. None of this has anything to do what your claim that the Greeks had the "right way of understanding Being." Being is not even mentioned here -- the issue is truth and the analysis of the "traditional conception of truth" and its derivatives.

As for "attributing to being a number of powers that go beyond the natural," what are you referring to?
— Xtrix
For example: — David Mo

The human being is rather "thrown" by being itself into the truth of being, so that ek-sisting in this fashion he might guard the truth of being, in order that beings might appear in the light of being as the beings they are. Human being do not decide whether and how beings appear, whether and how God and the gods or history and nature come forward into the clearing of being, come to presence and depart. The advent of beings lies in the destiny of being. — Heidegger: Letter on Humanism, Op. Cit. p. 252

Where does he "attribute to being" powers "beyond the natural" here? That's not what this passage says at all.

It's hard to attribute anything to Being, since being "itself" has no attributes. You keep wanting to think it's "God," or a mysterious "force," or something like that. But that's a tired, common reading of Heidegger. Completely untrue, to boot. He says nothing whatever, including in your irrelevant quotation (number 33, congratulations), about "powers of being." Being has no "powers." This is more of your own imagination.

How anyone could think, even after reading the little of Heidegger you have read (haphazardly, with the intention of confirming prior beliefs), that he says that Western metaphysics is "wrong," that the early Greeks were "right," and that being has properties, including "powers beyond nature," is pretty surprising. You've added this on yourself -- again, because you made up your mind a long time ago about Heidegger. It's a pity that this mentality blocks your understanding. I'd say "keep reading," but that's pointless -- and I should have realized that from the beginning.

Let me save you further trouble: Heidegger is a mystic and a charlatan who wanted to be the philosopher-savior of the Western world. And a Nazi to boot. He can rightfully be ignored, especially since he gave up on his project later in life.

There. Now you don't have to further burden yourself with this guy.

"Being must be explained beyond intuition." Again, this really goes against everything Heidegger writes.
— Xtrix

Again, you don't know Heidegger well :

Thirdly, it is held that 'Being' is of all concepts the one that is self­ evident. Whenever one cognizes anything or makes an assertion, whenever one comports oneself towards entities, even towards oneself, some use is made of 'Being'; and this expression is held to be intelligible 'without further ado', just as everyone understands "The sky is blue', 'I am merry', and the like. But here we have an average kind of intelligibility, which merely demonstrates that this is unintelligible. It makes manifest that in any way of comporting oneself towards entities as entities-even in any Being towards entities as entities-there lies a priori an enigma.The very fact that we already live in an understanding of Being and that the mean­ing of Being is still veiled in darkness proves that it is necessary in principle to raise this question again.
— Heidegger: B&T, p. 4/27 — David Mo

No, you weren't clear. Notice he doesn't once mention "intuition," which is a loaded term. If by "intuition" you're referring to the "pre-ontological understanding of being," then yes -- we shouldn't simply accept that understanding, and should raise the question of the meaning of being again. Fine. Be more clear next time.

Xtrix,

I think a lot of readers would say it was Heidegger who is from another planet. But, no, he was part of a tradition which he both parasited upon and abused. If you do not know the difference between induction and reduction you don't know enough philosophy to read any of it at all. Mind is far vaster place than you seem comfortable with. Whatever.

I gave you a statement: “Every utterance is unique.” What do you not understand in this? I must confess, I mean “unique” in the strict sense. If “Being” is as Heidegger claims, what is unique is either what “Being” is, or it is nothing at all. As Goethe claimed, you can't be hammer and anvil too. But if presence is a future emancipated from its past, then the unique is the emancipator that is the only presence. Presence, that is, because the future can only remembrance that unique act in contrariety to the stricture of its past in recognition of the value that emancipation is to it. It's a simple enough question, then, do you understand what uniqueness really is, and why it is conclusive proof Heidegger made a hash of everything he turned his mind to? — Gary M Washburn

You really do live in your own world, don't you? I haven't come across someone so delusional on this forum yet, so thank you for providing that experience.

Any concealing or downgraded translation of Heraclitus and Parmenides in terms of substantia meant the loss of the right way of understanding Being. — David Mo

The "right way." It's almost laughable to put it like this.

Your thesis: Parmenides and Heraclitus had it "right" (though we're not sure what the "it" refers to), and those after them have it "wrong." Excellent analysis. But not once in Heidegger. Which is why in all of your 32 references it's not once claimed.

As for "attributing to being a number of powers that go beyond the natural," what are you referring to? There's no way Heidegger "attributes" anything to Being, because being HAS NO attributes. It has no properties. It has no traits. It is not even an "it."
— Xtrix

That is why Heidegger says that it is destiny, the key to being saved, that it is revealed or hidden, that it dwells in the languge, that is the truth, etc., etc. Of course, that's not having properties. I suppose Heidegger calls it something else, proclaims it to be the "true" meaning and is so calm. Privileges of quackery jargon. — David Mo

You don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Again. Quite boring.

Now it's simply "quackery jargon," which you believed from the beginning, prior to your very thorough and open-minded two-week investigation into Heidegger. Again, excellent analysis.

"The Being of entities 'is' not itself an entity." -- B/T, p. 26

Objects and substances (beings) have properties. Being has no properties. What you referred to above is ridiculous -- he never refers to being as a "destiny" as though this a property of some kind, that's competely meaningless. You're confusing being and beings. Beings are revealed or hidden. Heidegger discusses this a lot. Of course, you have to read him first.

So there you go -- I've highlighted a bunch of "negative" words for you.
— Xtrix
Leaving aside the fact that here another subject is raised that is not Western metaphysics. the text you quote would work against your argument! Or is being dangerous not negative? — David Mo

I anticipated this, and even said so:

So there you go -- I've highlighted a bunch of "negative" words for you. If you truly believe, given what he's talking about here, that it relates to what you're claiming -- as I anticipate you will -- then you're completely off track. — Xtrix

Kind of funny. Thanks for proving my point.

It's a stupid decision, yes. Completely ignorant choice. But that doesn't make them stupid and dull people -- it means they're making a mistake.

I say it here, and I'd say it your face as well tough guy.

I wonder what the logic was here. How does she appeal to anyone besides establishment Democrats? A California lawyer. Not seeing the strategy.

I still think what's most shocking is the 8 people on this site who said they'd vote for Donald Trump.

Xtrix,

Not off topic at all. Just not within the limits you arbitrarily set. — Gary M Washburn

The limits I set is that this thread is about Martin Heidegger's philosophy. That's not arbitrary, it's the topic I chose. Are we free to talk about life on Mars? Sure. But that's off topic. Likewise, nearly everything you've said is off-topic -- and both incoherent and boring, to boot.

I'll skip the rest.

Heidegger offers no interpretation of being
— Xtrix

If you mean he doesn't offer any coherent interpretation, fine. But that doesn't stop him from attributing to Being a number of powers that go beyond the natural. — David Mo

No, he offers no interpretation period.

As for "attributing to being a number of powers that go beyond the natural," what are you referring to? There's no way Heidegger "attributes" anything to Being, because being HAS NO attributes. It has no properties. It has no traits. It is not even an "it." Being is not a being. It is not an object. It is not an entity.

This is elementary in Heidegger. But feel free to explain. What, in your opinion, is he "attributing" to being?

As he says in Being and Time, Being must be explained beyond the intuition, because the existing explanations have hidden the truth of Being. — David Mo

"Being must be explained beyond intuition." Again, this really goes against everything Heidegger writes.

Being is interpreted as presence in the Western tradition. That has become self-evident and unquestioned. Heidegger wants to re-awaken the question again, through phenomenology (basically the analysis of what's "hidden") of our existence and through the "deconstruction" of the history of Western thought. Where do attributes and explanations come into play?

"In the main they are wrong." You simply don't know what you're talking about.
— Xtrix

I think this is exactly your case:

You're a good disciple of Heidegger: you've decided that words don't mean what they usually mean but what you want them to mean. That's why you don't care what the dictionaries and everyone who has studied Heidegger say. — David Mo

"Everyone who has studied Heidegger." First of all, I've studied Heidegger. I care about my own reading of him, yes. More so than secondary sources. If they have evidence, I'll gladly hear it. You certainly have not provided it. Secondly, "everyone" is a sweeping generalization with no basis in fact. Dreyfus, Carmen, Blattner, Kelley, etc. etc., hardly agree with your assessment.

Of course, the criterion of authority is not an argument in itself, but there are times when it is useful. It's useful in the face of a question we don't know. When talking about nuclear physics, most human beings have no choice but to trust what the scientists say. When all the experts on Heidegger say one thing contrary to what you say you would do well to meditate a little on your position. Especially when you are not able to present a single text that supports your position and you say it because you want to. — David Mo

Again, see above regarding "all the experts." But not only does the text not support your assertion, neither do the experts.

And I've quoted MULTIPLE texts that demonstrate exactly the opposite of what you're saying. I even linked you a video from Heidegger's own mouth about how he "does not mean by that anything negative." I suppose that was ignored, which isn't surprising.

And your whole excuse is that "free from something" is a "technical" term whose meaning only you know. Don't make me laugh. Where did you get your knowledge? If you don't back up your interpretation with commentators' texts or Heidegger's, where does your interpretation come from? Is it a metaphysical intuition? — David Mo

It comes from Heidegger's text, which I've quoted dozens of times. Of course he's arguing we should free ourselves from the tradition. That's not in question. What's in question is your taking that to mean the history of philosophy is somehow "wrong" in Heidegger's eyes, and yet haven't "presented a single text that supports your position," not surprisingly -- because he never says it. Your "deducing" it from the text is your own business. I've provided plenty of explanation as to why that's not the case -- which you've (also not surprisingly) ignored. That's also your business, not mine. If you care to learn, then learn to listen. If you care to pretend to be an expert out of ego, then do it elsewhere.

I got tired of providing you with Heidegger's negative terms regarding the western metaphysical tradition, — David Mo

And I get tired repeatedly telling you that these terms pertain to translations of Greek words, not to what you're claiming. If you still don't understand that, that's also your problem, not mine.

I think I must have put here a dozen examples taken from Heidegger's own books. I repeat some of them to refresh your memory, which seems to be somewhat weak.

Deteriorating, collapsing, falling down, inadequately formulated, forgotten, distortions, taken over dogmatically, concealments, baleful prejudice, failed to determine, falsified, misses its sense entirely, falsified from the bottom up, degeneration, blocked, forgotten, erroneous — David Mo

Yes, and which ones are referring to "Western philosophy", exactly? Don't bother, I already know. See above.

If you want to believe that listing a bunch of words, without context, lends credence to your claims that Heidegger believes the Western interpretations of being have been "wrong," you're welcome to.

"Firstly I have to correct the question with regard to the way in which you talked about the 'downfall of Being'. For that is not meant in a negative manner. I do not speak about a 'downfall' of Being, but rather about the fate of Being insofar as it hides itself more and more in comparison to the Openness of Being with the Greeks." -- Martin Heidegger

Again, the above quotation is Heidegger, not me. What do you make of it? Is he simply confused? True, maybe you, in your extensive study, understand Heidegger better than me -- and better than Heidegger.

All of them constitute a "radical" criticism, that is to say, in its root, to the western metaphysics, which, according to Heidegger has undertaken a wrong way of which it is necessary to get rid of. Of course, according to your metaphysical intuition they do not mean "wrong". They're just for show. — David Mo

Let me try this way. If Western metaphysics is "wrong" -- then what's "right"? Parmenides and Heraclitus? What were their interpretations of being? They certainly asked the question -- but so did Plato and Aristotle. Where is the textual support for this assertion, if in fact this is what you believe?

But you just respond like a litany (mantra, if you like) that they don't mean what they obviously say. But you cannot present a single text in your favour. — David Mo

I have provide multiple texts in my favor. But if I were using your method, I'd simply pick "positive" words from Being and Time and make a list of them, context-free.

So far all you've proven is that you can list words that Heidegger uses. You've had several opportunities to show where he says the interpretations of being are "wrong." Where? I'll give you another shot. But I won't hold my breath, because there are none. You've taken other words, like "falsified from the bottom up" (pertaining to translations, as I've repeatedly 100 times), and claimed it as proof that the tradition is "wrong," which is never said. That's all you've done.

So this debate is not a real debate. It is pure stubbornness on your part. — David Mo

The stubbornness is with you. I've said from the beginning it was a nit-picking point, said numerous things which are far more substantial (and even re-posted them to get it back on track), and yet you've focused, laser-like, on this one narrow and boring issue. The fact that you refuse to understand it, "stubbornly," is your own issue. The fact that I won't let it slide, even something as trivial as this, is what's truly bothering you -- but I do so repeatedly because it's simply incorrect. You should be adult enough to see it. But you won't, because you want to believe you're an expert in something you're not. As I've been very honest about: I know Heidegger better than you. It's not because I'm smarter, it's because I've spent more time reading him. You refuse to accept this and learn from me. That's also your business.

Probably because you presented yourself as someone who knew Heidegger's work well and this is not true. If you have read one or two texts that you did not understand or did not want to understand. There's not much to present you as an authority on the subject. — David Mo

I never said I was an authority. But do I understand Heidegger better than you? Yes, and it's clear to me. It'd be clear to Heidegger scholars as well.

You started this thread by saying:
I want to be clear that I consider Heidegger to be a great thinker and teacher, and that I've learned a great deal from his writings and interviews
— Xtrix

You don't look like you've demonstrated that much knowledge of Heidegger to me. Actually, almost nothing. I think the two months I've been reviewing Heidegger has been more productive than your whole life as a Heideggerian. I've presented at least ten times more Heidegger's texts here than you have. A clear indication. — David Mo

Not my whole life. The spring of last year until the present I've been carefully and seriously reading Heidegger. I have well over a dozen books. I've listened to many lectures as well.

You don't really think that, and you know it. Your ego is just getting the best of you, and now you're regressing into a childlike tantrum. Carry on if you must, but I suggest not letting emotion get the better of you.

It's also ironic that the person accusing me of not understanding Heidegger has admittedly read far less, and has very explicitly started from an approach of debunking/refuting rather than attempting to understand (which has consistently lead to false, speculative, and unsubstantiated claims, both about what Heidegger says and about his character).

_________

To recap. Your claim is that (1) Heidegger believes Western philosophy (since at least Parmenides and Heraclitus), in the sense of its interpretations of being (since ousia), is "wrong" ("in the main").

It's a simple claim, and it's simply wrong. Heidegger does not say this, nor does he believe it. In fact, as I've quoted above, goes out of his way to say there is nothing negative meant in his assessment. These interpretations are not inaccurate or incorrect -- in fact these terms don't even apply. They are simply historical facts (as he sees it). What you've given as examples are related to translations, mainly of Greek words (e.g., aletheia, logos, phusis, doxa, etc), which Heidegger indeed believes are wrong, inaccurate, and incorrect. You take these and conflate them with (1) above. That's simply not the case.

Here's an example of why you go awry (emphasis mine):

"There are various ways in which phenomena can be covered up. In the first place, a phenomenon can be covered up in the sense that is is still quite undiscovered. It is neither known nor unknown. Moreover, a phenomenon can be buried over. This means that is has at some time been discovered but has deteriorated [verfiel] to the point of getting covered up again. This covering-up can become complete; or rather--and as a rule-- what has been discovered earlier may still be visible, though only as a semblance. Yet so much semblance, so much 'Being.' This covering-up as a 'disguising' is both the most frequent and the most dangerous, for here the possibilities of deceiving and misleading are especially stubborn." -- B&T, p. 60

So there you go -- I've highlighted a bunch of "negative" words for you. If you truly believe, given what he's talking about here, that it relates to what you're claiming -- as I anticipate you will -- then you're completely off track.

But carry on.

I've considered myself a pessimist now, and I'm 38 years old. To be honest, it leads me to being severely depressed & suicidal; there is not a single day now where I don't think of death, and even suicide personally. — niki wonoto

Although admittedly, my pessimistic outlook were perhaps mostly & originally also caused by what I've considered myself & my life to be a failure. — niki wonoto

Why do you consider it a failure? According to what standard? Your own or others? If your own, why do you hold those standards and not others? Some might say you're a success. You need a standard on which to judge failure or success, and it helps by starting with a particular area. Narrow it down a little. Are you a "failure" in finance, health, relationships, education, work, job?

38 seems a little young to be pessimistic. I read Schopenhauer in my early 30s, but never became suicidal. A good antidote to pessimism is realizing what Nietzsche pointed out: it's simply one perspective, betraying a physiological disposition more than anything else. He was responding directly to Schopenhauer.

Is this world really that awful or painful? For some people, some of the time. But not for most. If you live in the United States or in Europe, you're far more privileged than most of the world, and in fact most people in history. Most of these "other" people are too busy to be depressed or pessimistic. We in the West, with our technology and higher standard of living, have the time to say "It's not good enough."The point being: it's something learned, and it can be un-learned. First and foremost, stop reading things that confirm and reinforce your depression -- that's no different than political information silos.

There are plenty of opportunities in life, and you can make what you wish of it. Not happy with yourself? Well, suicide is an option -- true. But if death doesn't scare you, what the hell if holding you back in LIFE? Loss? Rejection? Failing? Compared to voluntary, eternal non-existence, none of these things seem all that bad.

There are also practical measures you can take to beat depression (and pessimism) if you really are motivated. Meditation is a great one for that. There's plenty of resources online. But be forewarned: it's hard work. Exercise helps a lot. Diet too. Having good friends, and generally a strong social support system is also very beneficial -- most suicides and depression stems from isolation and loneliness. Having an idea of what you want out of life -- working towards something -- is crucial as well. What do you care about? Get engaged with others and work towards that.

All of these things, individually or (better) in combination will pull you out of depression. If you're extremely depressed and suicidal, then see a therapist. Meds can really help, at least as training wheels.

Cheers.

“They encounter a sick man or an old man or a corpse, and immediately they say, 'Life is refuted.' But only they themselves are refuted, and their eyes, which see only this one face of existence.” -- Nietzsche

There is nothing I equate "Being" with because that would be to predicate upon the form of predication. Neither can the form or idea of predication be intransitive. It is a passive verb, or, at most, a part of a middle voice, not an active agent in the real. "Being" is not a pronoun! By 'better', I simply mean more meaningful. or even more what meaning, and worth, is. The only agency in reality is a departure that has no "da" unless what remains is burdened with a responsibility that the worth of the departed be recognized. That departure is the only act of being, and that response is what love really is. There can be no anticipating it or finding it in time, because it is not being there at all. And what does "da" mean? For one thing, it really is neither here nor there, and if context determines for us what we think it means it can hardly be objective. The plain fact of the matter is the more we map our whereabouts the less present we are there. Proximally and for the most part, if I may, all systems of navigation are quite explicitly a means of passing through and leaving, not of being there at all. And if you mean to leave you are not really there. "Da" is intrinsically vague and ambiguous, and vagueness and ambiguity is what "Being" is. The capitalization does not give it agency. — Gary M Washburn

I never once mentioned agency.
I never once mentioned "love."

"Vagueness and ambiguity is what 'being' is" is more nonsense, so I assume one of your "original" thoughts.

Learn to use the "quote" feature so people know what the hell you're talking about. Otherwise you're a massive bore.

The term "Aletheia" came up at some point. Fact is, Lethe is the river all souls must drink from entering Hades, for forgetfulness. A-letheia, therefore, means, simply, the unforgotten or un-forgetfulness. — Gary M Washburn

So far the only coherent (and accurate) thing you've said.

Scholars are in general agreement that Heidegger's grasp of Greek is bogus. — Gary M Washburn

What scholars? Provide reference to these scholars.

Sorry if I'm not getting through to you, but I am quite certain the fault is not wholly mine. — Gary M Washburn

No, I'm quite certain it is. You keep rambling off topic, and it's boring. If you simply want to hear yourself talk, let me know so I can ignore you. By adding "Xtrix" at the beginning of your post, I assume it's related to me somehow. So far that really hasn't been the case, as you've simply meandered into irrelevancies. You remind me of Harding from One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest.

Re-read what I wrote and try again.

If you want to say that Heidegger's words against metaphysical Western tradition (degenerated, deteriorate, concealing, dogmatic, etc.) are not negative I think we have different dictionaries. And so it is impossible any serious discussion.
— David Mo

Not different -- he just never applies it in the way you're saying. As I've gone over with you several times now, there's a distinction to be drawn between translations and the entirety of Western thought. He does not believe the latter is "wrong" -- but rather that an essential thing has been overlooked: that all of our various ways of interpreting being has been on the basis of the present -- and that perhaps it's time to go to the "things themselves" (the cry of phenomenology) by understanding and overthrowing this tradition. — Xtrix

This, along with every other substantive comment I've made, naturally gets ignored in favor of:

Kind of a weak appeal to authority.
— Xtrix
If you don't mind being alone in the face of danger, go ahead. But Gary Cooper only wins in the movies. — David Mo

He doesn't say "get rid of," he says we must "free ourselves" from
— Xtrix

From Cambridge dictionary of English:
Synonym of free from/of sth. : removing and getting rid of things.

This is my dictionary, what is your dictionary? I'm afraid it's not an English dictionary. — David Mo

So now you've apparently been reduced to appeals to authority and, as I've discussed elsewhere, appeals to dictionaries. Pity.

You won't find any negativity in Heidegger beyond perhaps harsh critiques of translations -- and rarely at that. Your own projections are exactly that: your own. This "true/false", "good/bad," "right/wrong" way of analyzing history and philosophy is childish and, more importantly, completely misses Heidegger's point. I suggest going back to the drawing board on that one.

But again it's worth pointing out that this is a trivial issue. One you happen to be wrong about and can't bring yourself to admit to, but since you evidently have nothing left to contribute beyond that you carry on anyway. Well, carry on some more if you must.

I don't think you're saying that necessarily...but think about it: if they're all "wrong" in their interpretation of being and beings and of time, then what value do they have?
— Xtrix
I think I've explained this, but here we go.

If they have any, it will not be as paths to the truth of Being, guides of the thinker. They will be partial and secondary successes. In the main they are wrong. That's not I who say this. Heidegger repeatedly says it, as anyone who's read only one of his books can be aware. — David Mo

No, he doesn't. Why? Because "paths to the truth of Being" is meaningless, for anyone who's read Heidegger. Openness of being is the truth, and thus we all possess it, in a "pre-ontological understanding." Being is not an object.

Secondly, "wrong" is never said in Heidegger when referring to the interpretation of being, as I have shown. Never. Not once. Ever. That's your fantasy. I'll repeat once again, for the now perhaps tenth time, so you can selectively leave it out of your quotations: Heidegger offers no interpretation of being. He's talking about the history of the interpretation, the meaning, of being, and the asking of the question of the meaning of being. The early Greeks did ask that question, and it has since become trivialized and concealed. The interpretation of being has been through-and-through Greek, as presence, but has gone through many variations, from the Christian to the modern age. These interpretations are not "wrong," which is why Heidegger never says that, but they do indeed forget the asking of the question and so, at their core, take up a thoroughly Greek intepretation: namely, ousia -- presence.

"In the main they are wrong." You simply don't know what you're talking about. Mainly due to the fact that you want to paint a picture of Heidegger as a person with a god-complex who wants to position himself as a savior of some kind. With that picture in mind, yes I'm sure it's very easy to project onto his writings something like "All of Western philosophy is wrong, in the main." But it's utter nonsense.

Perhaps read Heidegger for longer than a couple weeks.

My instructor was a recognized expert in Heidegger who conducted well attended seminars on him, and Plato, at a major eastern university. When her class tied itself in knots trying to work out what “Being” is she would sometimes forcefully pronounce that '“Being” is better than nothing!' But is it? — Gary M Washburn

I don't understand what "better" signifies here, nor what you mean by "being" and "nothing." So there's no way to talk about it. It's clear you're not using any of these terms in reference to Heidegger, since you've made clear you haven't read him and have no interested in doing so. So your own very free-thinking observations and questions look juvenile to me, in that context. It's good to ask those questions regardless, and I wish you well in your pursuit of them.

In fact, she drove herself insane, and ultimately to an early grave, believing that, and reiterating it ever more forcefully. But aren't there times, admittedly rare and very painful times, when nothing is better than something? When “Being” just isn't worth it? If so, it takes courage, honesty, and a great deal of discipline to recognize this. To tell me you cannot see any meaning in my responses is not an argument against me. And it bespeaks an astonishing lack of interest in what you seem to be claiming to be deeply invested in. I understand that you initiated this thread, and expect a certain control over its conduct. But if that expectation extends to dismissing strong counter-views I can only conclude your interest is not as intense as you suppose. — Gary M Washburn

Your writing is incoherent and completely off-topic and, thus, inappropriate. That's what I object to, first and foremost.

Now you seem to be equating "Being" with life, and asking if there aren't some times in life where death is better than life. That's been asked many times by many people, and it's a good question and an important one -- but that's completely irrelevant to this thread. Do you understand?

My interests in Heidegger and the question of being has nothing to do with what you're talking about. You're off in your own world. To flatter yourself by saying you offer "strong counter-views" should be embarrassing. You've not demonstrated the least bit of understanding of Heidegger, the topic of this thread, and have even gone on to say you have no interest in doing so. If you want to share your questions and views on various topics, you're welcome to. Why come here to do so? That's what I'm not seeing and what you're apparently not understanding.

This, by the way, is the subject of Hess's impressive book, and of all the other sources I have cited, which you seem to suppose have no bearing upon the question of the meaning of “Being”. Another resource is a movie called “Cloud Atlas”, in which rebels against oppressive regimes find themselves together over great stretches of time, never really successful in their own time, but ultimately more real and worthwhile together, though never meeting, than any of them is in their own time. Something like this is how recognizing that nothingness is sometimes is better than “Being”, and that our enjoining in recognizing this is much more worthy of us than asserting it can never mean anything, as Heidegger does. — Gary M Washburn

(1) Your use of "Being" is not that of Heidegger's. Heidegger in fact offers no interpretation whatsoever.
(2) Heidegger never, not once, claims that being "never means anything." That's a completely ridiculous statement, given that you've read him at all. But since you haven't, I suppose it's forgivable.
(3) "Being" is not synonymous with "life" or "consciousness," so why keep using it this way?

So, if the above is to the point at all, "Being" is and can only be a kind of decadence. And the world is the circumstance and language of that decadence. The quotidian is endemic to "Being". There simply is no enduring what worth is. And so, "Being" always forecloses itself against it. — Gary M Washburn

Complete gibberish.