A Question of Truth?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: A Question of Truth?

Post by Hereandnow »

Only this: You absolutely must read and study (read other online papers about it) Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and have a "Copernican Revolution" occur in your thinking to understand Heidegger. I don't see how it is possible otherwise. Heidegger is a phenomenologist, and thus completely abandons any popular idea that puts personhood in some kind of empirical science framework. Forget science altogether. Forget that you, in your authentic self, are an evolutionary product, an animal, a physical person. Just drop it, then pick up the Critique.

This is difficult for most people. But to get to dasein, you have to go through a disillusionment about materialism. Once you understand that humans and everything else are literally "idea" then you see what Heidegger has to say about this. He takes you out of idea into dasein which is a kind of sealed interpretative world of human Being. Never touches the "ground", so to speak.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: A Question of Truth?

Post by Hereandnow »

Thought you might find John Haugeland's account of dasein interesting:

We are at last in a position to address the fundamental question for
any interpretation of Being and Time:What isDasein? According to the
text, the anyone (pp. 126-30), the world (pp. 64, 364, and 380), language (p. 166), and even the sciences (p. 11) all have "Dasein'skind of
being." We can make sense of this astonishing diversity if we understand Dasein to be the anyone and everything instituted by it: a vast
intricate pattern-generated and maintained by conformism-of
norms, normal dispositions, customs, sorts, roles, referral relations,
public institutions, and so on.7 On this reading, the anyone, the (everyday) world, and language are different coherent "subpatterns"within
the grand pattern that is Dasein; they have Dasein's kind of being
because each of them is Dasein (though none of them is all of Dasein).
Within the anyone and all it institutes, the science of chemistry is a
coherent subpattern: chemistry is Dasein-and so are philately,
Christmas, and Cincinnati.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: A Question of Truth?

Post by Burning ghost »

Hereandnow -

What are you talking about? I "must" read Kant? I have already stated that I have read it; and when I say "read it" I don't mean I've scanned my eyes over the words, I mean "I've read it, and continue to reread it," because it is an amazing piece of analytical philosophy.

As for your projection of what I think ... you're wrong. I start at Husserl, the one who began "phenomenology" for a very specific purpose, and whose student Heidegger was (as you should know.) Heidegger does "hermeneutic phenomenology" not "phenomenology" as the project set out by Husserl. It is a different, and more liken to literary theory - which is a fruit plucked from the phenomenological tree, but it is not the tree.

I don't mean to be funny here. I asked spefically for Heidegger's account not other extrapolations and a continual hermeneutic river of interpretations - that is precisely the trick I believe Heidegger unwittingly/unconsciously pulls a few times.

I am well aware we're not talking about a "material" concept. I am well aware that the phenomenological pursuit it not interested in such distinctions directly because I recognose full well that the "object" must be "intersubjective."

Maybe it will be better for me to quote Heidegger and you explain what he means. The Husserlian equivalent would be the "ego" subject, yet the term "subject" is obviously framed without the false dichotic distinction of object and subject.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: A Question of Truth?

Post by Burning ghost »

I will paraphrase what Heidegger says.

Dasein is that that has no objective being, but is the being that is the asking of being.

My argument against this is it is doublespeak. My argument for it is he's trying explicate something without "thingness", so why bother? In order to be able to adumbrate some possible otherness. As an exploratory function it serves some purpose, it is really a way to reframe the concept of "purpose."

The rest of his terminology seems to be no more than simply taking Husserl's terms and adjusting them to fit a slightly more skewed, and specific, route of enquiry into consciousness. Husserl was not concerned with any specifics and resisted "conclusions. Heidegger took up one corridor and made it out to be the ONLY corridor to go down.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: A Question of Truth?

Post by Burning ghost »

These are Heidegger's words, and in the preface of translation by Stambaugh there is a specific request made by Heidegger not to translate "da-sein" as "existence." Da-sein, for those others reading this, literally means "being there" (although given that English is backwards it would be more accurate to say it literally translates as "there-be/ing".)

The very first instance of Heidegger's attempt to express what his term means is here:
Asking this question, as a mode of being of a being, is itself essentially determined by what is asked about in it - being. This being which we ourselves in each case are and which includes inquiry among the possibilities of its being we formulate terminologically as Da-sein.

- Heidegger, Being and Time, (p.6); Stambaugh translation. It is worth noting Stambaugh was a student of Heidegger and close to him, and it is also worth considering that translating German into English can be difficult because German is a very literal language.
The issue I have here is the use of the term "it" and the blind-sightedness of saying "it" and then in the next breath saying "no it." From a phenomenological perspective this is reasonable, but Heidegger has already stepped out of the phenomenological perspective to some degree and back into the "material" use of language - as he must. Hence he is forever chasing his tail and continues to do so throughout the work, but I admit he has SOME success here and there by creating useful strings of meaning and some nice metaphors and paraphrasing of the real item at hand - the item of consciousness.

In the next paragraph on the same page Heidegger continues to layer on the "meaning" of Dasein:
Da-sein is a being that does not simply occur among other beings. Rather it is ontically distinguished by the fact that in its being this being is concerned about its very being.

... The ontic distinction of Da-sein lies in the fact that it is ontological.
Please note that the italics are not mine.

There is no denying that to frame the meaning of "being" is a cumbersome task. I know why it is. Intellectually it is impossible and any verbose attempt to do so can be interesting and reveal new linguistic avenues to wander down, but in essence "being" is more than an intellectual entity.

It is worth mentioning here that Husserl cast himself as a scientist first not a philosopher. He was trying to create a science of subjectivity, much in the light of taking up the psychological pursuit and wrestling it away from the abyssal maw of objective science and determinism. In this respect I imagine he likely spotted what Nietzsche was talking about and from all of this Freud and Jung birthed psychoanalysis.

Husserl actually berates Kant for blindly accepting the existence of the world, so it is clearly incorrect to state what you have above. Here is precisely what he titles his chapter in his incomplete work "Crisis":
"THE WAY INTO PHENOMENOLOGICAL TRANSCENDENTAL PHILOSOPHY BY INQUIRYING BACK FROM THE PREGIVEN LIFE-WORLD

Section 28. Kant's unexpressed "presupposition": the surrounding world of life, taken for granted as valid."

- Husserl, The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, (p. 103), translated by David Carr
I have Qualms with Husserl too, but I need to read more of his earlier work to fill in the gaps of Crisis; which was not the finished product because he died before he had a chance to complete it.

It is also worth noting that a lot of the ideas attributed to Heidegger and believed to have been taken up later by Husserl were not actually Heidegger's ideas. Husserl wrote A LOT. It seems like many of the ideas Husserl seems to have taken up from Heidegger were actually his ideas originally because his private writing predate Heidegger's - of course this is hard to tell in some instances and I would say that Heidegger did a great deal to explore ways of expressing these complex ideas in more specific areas of investigation; whereas Husserl seemed too occupied with a more "universal" approach.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: A Question of Truth?

Post by Hereandnow »

Burning Ghost:
Dasein is that that has no objective being, but is the being that is the asking of being.

My argument against this is it is doublespeak. My argument for it is he's trying explicate something without "thingness", so why bother? In order to be able to adumbrate some possible otherness. As an exploratory function it serves some purpose, it is really a way to reframe the concept of "purpose."

The rest of his terminology seems to be no more than simply taking Husserl's terms and adjusting them to fit a slightly more skewed, and specific, route of enquiry into consciousness. Husserl was not concerned with any specifics and resisted "conclusions. Heidegger took up one corridor and made it out to be the ONLY corridor to go down.
I don't really understand what you are saying about these two. Heidegger took up one corridor? Husserl not concerned with specifics? They have very different things to say. Heidegger made it a point not repeat others by using the standard terminology. You will find precious little or terms like 'consciousness' and 'secondary and primary qualities' and 'mind/body'. He uses his own in very unique and determinate ways, dasein, facticity, ontic, ontology, existentiell, existential, and on and on.The trouble you have with him is the same for everybody: you want to understand him by paraphrasing B&T into familiar ideas. But you can do this,at least not until you've actually read him on and in his terms. Then when you have pic axed your way through HIS text, with Hubert Dreyfus' famous accompanying "Being in the World" and others (I have many), then in time it comes together.

Dasein has no objective Being. I would have to see where this is from. But try this: Being, human Being which is dasein, does not have that transcendental ego, intuited soul as the grounding of subjectivity (this would be up Husserl's ally).Granted, things belong to me and are mine, but these terms as all terms are themselves part of dasein. Forget anything you ever thought true of what the world is, what reality is; and forget mind body distinctions, intuitions that intimate the world, and that concrete "feel" of things, their weight, ideas of mass and composition. forget physic of any other empirical science. One thing Heidgger and Husserl do have in common is they have a lot of nasty things to say about empirical science's knowledge claims intruding into the prerogatives of philosophy.

I emphasize Kant because he really helps in this, because he teaches us how to see an object as a language/sensory data composite. That is the beginning of understanding Heidegger. He calls these, and everything and anything one says in explaining is risky, respectively, ready to hand and presence at hand. Dasein IS ready to hand. And this begs a lot of analysi, and if anyone wants to take this to task it would be interesting, because this is what philosophy does. SO: Dasein is that that has no objective being, but is the being that is the asking of being, what does this mean? It can only mean,as I see it, that dasein as language and cultural institutions , as John Haugeland puts it, a vast intricate pattern-generated and maintained by conformism-of norms, normal dispositions, customs, sorts, roles, referral relations, public institutions, is not present to hand (objective?). Dasein is not at all like a table or a physical thing. In fact, you could argue that dasein never "touches" physical things at all. Anyway, therefore, dasein is my instantiation, my particular role in my own "mineness" of a collective dasein in which the question could be posed about any this or that is posed about itself. I bit like language and culture asking, what is language and culture at the level of ontology, that is, the level where the structures of dasein are examined at a given terminal, a self, which is dasein.

It really is not nonsense. I spent many hours with B&T and have read with some genuine understanding. For me, if you haven;t made the turn toward idealism, the Copernican Revolution Kant speaks of, this will be impossible. But you've read Kant, so look closely at his thinking on matters of language and logic: are you convinced the world is idea? That is a beginning.

I'm out of time for now
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: A Question of Truth?

Post by Burning ghost »

Okay, I think we've both gone off-track here - and I initiated it!

For now, forget Kant, forget Husserl and forget anyone else we may wish to drag into this. My focus is completely on Heidegger and what he means by "Da-sein." I don't wish to hear comparisons (if at all possible - I understand that is a difficult I am asking.) I can just say that we could go down that road at a later date.

I have quoted the very first instance he used the term "Da-sein" and how he outlined it; again here it is:
Asking this question, as a mode of being of a being, is itself essentially determined by what is asked about in it - being. This being which we ourselves in each case are and which includes inquiry among the possibilities of its being we formulate terminologically as Da-sein.
Da-sein is a being that does not simply occur among other beings. Rather it is ontically distinguished by the fact that in its being this being is concerned about its very being.
What I get from this is that it is, without being an "it" or without everything "being," that which is an "entity" not really possessing being, but being a being as a investigative purpose. The being's being of beingness I believe is how he later fashions this.

My problem is that although I find this useful, and in fact self-evident, I don't think he does a very good job of expressing this idea because he goes too intricately into it. I found this in several sections of B&T where I got to the last paragraph and realized that the previous several pages were not needed (at least for me.) This is part and parcel of philosophical writing though, one is trained to explain everything in precise detail; but sadly sometimes by doing so one oversteps the line that mark out explication.

My "gist", my "summation" of what "da-sein" means is this ... being is consciousness. I don't see much more being said, although he goes out to adumbrate the meaning of this "consciousness." The benefit of the phenomenological "perspective" is that it is unconcerned with physicality or metaphysics, so when he is talking here I understand that the "being" it not a metaphysical nor a physical being, neither can it be an explicated phenomenological being because phenomenon is phenomenon, there is only layer, upon layer, upon layer of the being of this being being. The most useful term I extracted from Heidegger was "de-distancing."

You can see my attempts at summing this up are unwieldy and result in me writing more in my "summation" - this is the ongoing problem of the expressing anything with precision and is very much part of the hermeneutic and literary tradition brought by Heidegger to the attention of more "implicit" experience beyond the mere concern of translating tracts of text and religious text.

To attempt again in one sentence ... Da-sein is not the "being", nor is it "being", it is the being's regard for its being (the problem with that sentence, as with Heidegger's, is the term "its".)

Refer to page 5-7 but let us not get caught up in his other extrapolation just yet (referring to the "ontic" and "ontology" - which I really struggle to assimilate with the definitions of "da-sein" he gives.)
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: A Question of Truth?

Post by Hereandnow »

Burning Ghost:
Asking this question, as a mode of being of a being, is itself essentially determined by what is asked about in it - being. This being which we ourselves in each case are and which includes inquiry among the possibilities of its being we formulate terminologically as Da-sein.
Da-sein is a being that does not simply occur among other beings. Rather it is ontically distinguished by the fact that in its being this being is concerned about its very being.
What I get from this is that it is, without being an "it" or without everything "being," that which is an "entity" not really possessing being, but being a being as a investigative purpose. The being's being of beingness I believe is how he later fashions this.
Asking this question, as a mode of being of a being: there are modes of dasein, inquiring is one.
is itself essentially determined by what is asked about in it - being: where did the question of Being come from? It is always already there; and as with all questions, to ask at all presupposed something there already that gave rise to the question. Being is this, here.
This being which we ourselves in each case are and which includes inquiry among the possibilities of its being we formulate terminologically as Da-sein.dasein is the Being that can inquire; it is us, and among our possibilities is inquiry.
it is ontically distinguished by the fact that in its being this being is concerned about its very being. 'Ontic' is a term that refers to ways of Being, like being a teacher or a plumber, or being gay (take special note of the way I use "being" here: "being a teacher" is a role is dasein, and the verb tells us how Being is to be construed:Heidegger is putting the onus of the nature of dasein here, on the verb 'to be'. He is talking about a symbolic institution called language: it is here, int he way we speak, play roles, talk about culture, museums, theater, my dying uncle, here in the words and their instrumentality we find our being. Wittgenstein's language games fit into this well.)
The being's being of beingness inquiry is a mode of dasein, a possibility for us. "the Being of our Being" is redundant, but then, H. may very well have said it. "Beingness"is a noun form of a noun. Not sure it's helpful.
My problem is that although I find this useful, and in fact self-evident, I don't think he does a very good job of expressing this idea because he goes too intricately into it. I found this in several sections of B&T where I got to the last paragraph and realized that the previous several pages were not needed (at least for me.) This is part and parcel of philosophical writing though, one is trained to explain everything in precise detail; but sadly sometimes by doing so one oversteps the line that mark out explication.
May I say this is not the way to read this. Many occasions in reading H I did not grasp his thinking. I continued, paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence. Come back later after he has clarified himself somewhat. I found as I read, answers to earlier questions were clear(er). I peered into the text as best I could, and some mysteries were pending. So I read on.
My "gist", my "summation" of what "da-sein" means is this ... being is consciousness. I don't see much more being said, although he goes out to adumbrate the meaning of this "consciousness." The benefit of the phenomenological "perspective" is that it is unconcerned with physicality or metaphysics, so when he is talking here I understand that the "being" it not a metaphysical nor a physical being, neither can it be an explicated phenomenological being because phenomenon is phenomenon, there is only layer, upon layer, upon layer of the being of this being being. The most useful term I extracted from Heidegger was "de-distancing."
De-distancing? I have to look that up. I suspect he is referring to regions of dasein, like General Motors and all I know about it. I bring it to mind, and it is proximal' I stop thinking about it,and it is "distanced". But i don't remember this term.
You can see my attempts at summing this up are unwieldy and result in me writing more in my "summation" - this is the ongoing problem of the expressing anything with precision and is very much part of the hermeneutic and literary tradition brought by Heidegger to the attention of more "implicit" experience beyond the mere concern of translating tracts of text and religious text.

To attempt again in one sentence ... Da-sein is not the "being", nor is it "being", it is the being's regard for its being (the problem with that sentence, as with Heidegger's, is the term "its".)

Refer to page 5-7 but let us not get caught up in his other extrapolation just yet (referring to the "ontic" and "ontology" - which I really struggle to assimilate with the definitions of "da-sein" he gives.)
Honestly? Do not get caught up in this. Wait. Read on. I could talk about these things, but his langauge is so abstruse that I cannot do so in a way that smooths all wrinkles. There are lots of places in B&T I will never be clear on. So what. I read his paper on Kantian logic and it was a screaming mess. I read it again with better clarity...it still screams in lots of places.
Do what I do, read on. I do have an advantage, though: I have a library full of PDF papers and books on H and many others. Huge library. You are welcome to it if in there is a way to get them to you.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: A Question of Truth?

Post by Burning ghost »

There is something of his I was interested in. Apparently it does highlight the work he put in prior to this. I will have to look up what it was called, but I do remember it came directly before his B&T and was published in Husserl's university journal I believe? Anyway, I'll have to dig out the name of that paper.

Did Heidegger actually study any natural science? As far as I can see he didn't.

Anyway, thanks for your time. I'll maybe take a better look at the term "dasein" in a week or two.

My annoyance is by the fact that he mentions the term "dasein" briefly a couple of times and then starts B&T proper with an 'Analysis of Dasein', covering up, what I see, as an already shaking definition of the term for the reader and with little understanding expressed of what the reader should make of the term - this then continues throughout the work and in a couple of places the term seems to be used in contradictory ways (I'll have to go back and read my notes and pick out the instances where I found this.)

I viewed the entire work as an attempt at the definition of "dasein." Personally I find terms like "ego" and "self" more useful. I don't see what the term "dasein" gives of use. It seems like a an attempt to express something that cannot be expressed in words. With the whole "ontic" and "ontological" conundrum what more is being professed than the phenomenological view of something "being" (the ontological view) is "taken up" by the ontic "be-er" being, in whatever mode this may or may not be. I find this more of a distraction of language, one which surrounds phenomenological being with words - note: I know I wasn't gonna mention Husserl again, but this is the difference I see between them; Husserl was not concerned by surrounding experience with words and neither was he getting caught up in etymological states and conceptually laid out data ... he does obviously use those terms to note how sensible experiences needed certain contents (a sound exists only if it has tone, volume and timbre, and an object exists only if it has depth, volume and colour, etc.,.)

Anyway ... I think it would be a good idea if we both read through the first few pages of B&T and then unearthed what precisely "dasein" means by using Heidegger's words as direct evidence. He starts off by setting out a etymological investigation and I am not satisfied with what anyone has said about the meaning of "dasein".

This is what you say (Heidegger's words in bold):
Asking this question, as a mode of being of a being,: there are modes of dasein, inquiring is one.
is itself essentially determined by what is asked about in it - being: where did the question of Being come from? It is always already there; and as with all questions, to ask at all presupposed something there already that gave rise to the question. Being is this, here.
I don't understand the need for you to insert anything between Heidegger's words. If we leave out the "as a mode being of a being" then we are left with:

Asking this question is itself essentially determined by what is asked about in it - being.

Or to paraphrase; "The asking of a question, no matter what the question is, is set upon the state of the questioner."

To further unearth the meaning here we can then ask what is meant by "state" and what kind of "thing" the "questioner" is. But we cannot ask directly any question of the questioner, because we cannot observe the "questioner" because we are the "questioner." How we "are" is not something we can engage in with mere worded verbosity and any attempt to do so is nothing more than tail chasing.

I will give credit to Heidegger because he does bring this up a paragraph or two after the quote I've provided.

I think I better start a separate thread on this ... or go back to the old one I made which likely already has all the quotes typed out.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: A Question of Truth?

Post by Hereandnow »

because we cannot observe the "questioner" because we are the "questioner."

I think this is always right, and from t he passage several posts ago, H does allow that there is this presence at hand Being that seems ineluctably paired with dasein. That is, something that is not dasein cannot be spoken, is ineffable presence. H takes the mystery out of being a self by saying, there is nothing to say about transcendental egos, noumena, Kantian intuitions, and so on. These are attempts to bring what is not dasein and make it dasein, to institutionalize them. H, and this is me talking now, really understood, to behold an object before you is entirely an interpretative affair. In my hand, this pencil as presence, utterly transcendental, that is, as presence it goes beyond/transcends dasein entirely. This is an extraordinary state if mind, and it is, again, me talking, exactly parallel to Husserl's mystical epoche.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: A Question of Truth?

Post by Fooloso4 »

Asking this question, as a mode of being of a being, is itself essentially determined by what is asked about in it - being. This being which we ourselves in each case are and which includes inquiry among the possibilities of its being we formulate terminologically as Da-sein.

Da-sein is a being that does not simply occur among other beings. Rather it is ontically distinguished by the fact that in its being this being is concerned about its very being.
I’ll take a shot at unpacking this. ‘This question’ is the question of Being. It is a question that is only asked by a particular being, man, and asking this question is part of what it is to be human. Being human is essentially determined by our unique relationship to Being. We are the being that asks the question of Being. It is with us that Being comes be as the question of Being. We are the there (da) of being (sein).

To be concerned about its being does not mean concerned with its survival. Dasein is not simply there in the world with other beings. Dasein stands out (literal meaning of exists) because only dasein asks about what it is to be, how it is, and how it should be.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: A Question of Truth?

Post by Hereandnow »

"We are the being that asks the question of Being."
But bound to ready to hand, making the question, with no transcendental ego to insert into it, a question merely, just another institution of the many of dasein, like, where is the restroom?
I, for one, need assistance proving this wrong. What troubles me is that the disclosure of the world cannot be about anything but dasein about more dasein. Herein is where postmodern thought finds the failure of philosophy.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: A Question of Truth?

Post by Burning ghost »

Hereandnow wrote: February 4th, 2018, 12:34 pm because we cannot observe the "questioner" because we are the "questioner."

I think this is always right, and from t he passage several posts ago, H does allow that there is this presence at hand Being that seems ineluctably paired with dasein. That is, something that is not dasein cannot be spoken, is ineffable presence. H takes the mystery out of being a self by saying, there is nothing to say about transcendental egos, noumena, Kantian intuitions, and so on. These are attempts to bring what is not dasein and make it dasein, to institutionalize them. H, and this is me talking now, really understood, to behold an object before you is entirely an interpretative affair. In my hand, this pencil as presence, utterly transcendental, that is, as presence it goes beyond/transcends dasein entirely. This is an extraordinary state if mind, and it is, again, me talking, exactly parallel to Husserl's mystical epoche.
I think you're pinning a lot on Heidegger that others had already done. "Mystical epoche"? What is "mystical"?

Then you mention a pencil and frame in in term of negative noumenon after just saying Heidegger has nothing to say about such things. Then you say "institutionalize", which I take to mean nothing more than a shuffling of words - which is precisely my qualm with Heidegger.

Fool -

I would ask, why not just say "consciousness" instead of "dasein"? It is easy enough to regard consciousness as being, because we consciously do this anyway. The term "dasein" is part of a semantic shift to look at things a little differently. I don't see what more it does.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: A Question of Truth?

Post by Hereandnow »

You've got to take up the issue of present at hand and ready to hand.
Institutionalize: a reference to how something "gets into" dasein. We have a verb, 'to institute' which means to establish, and something that is once established, becomes a fixed feature of, in this case, dasein. Dasein, one might say, is a body of institutions, things that are part of the grand institution of language and culture. My talk was about an attempt, like Kant's, to speak of apriori forms of intuitions as if their giveness were part of our, what to say, our knowledge-as-dasein. H's complaint about Kant is his claim that apriori knowledge issues from some impossible or magical intimation from present at hand. H rejects this kind of thing. Present at hand is not dasein, and he makes this clear very often.

Mystical epoche? Well, this is an obvious reference to Husserl. I say mystical, and so does Husserl, sort of. This is because once presuppositions about what a thing is are dropped, as explained in his account of the phenomenological reduction, and the world lays "bare" before your eyes and things in themselves.....errrr emerge, loom before you, it is quite outside of the norms that we live and breathe with. The epoche is NOT an ordinary part of the naturalistic attitude (Husserl's rather pejorative language) of being in the world. It requires meditation and transformation of the way we perceive things. Genuinely mystical.

The pencil and Heidegger: The main insight and problem Heidegger has given me lies in the attempt the know the things our ideas are supposed to be about. He presents our Being in the World as entirely detached from the presence of things. Those things are not dasein, andthere is nothing that gives them access to our dasein, because dasein is not a thing, not a presence. This pencil presents itself to me, so to speak, and yet my ideas, the matrix of thoughts available to know it are instrumental symbols that take up "the pencil" AS instrumental symbols. I think this is a profound insight, and a variation of it are found in American Pragmatism. There is no Nexus of intentionality, just, as Dewey might put it, a history of problem solving. Knowldge is REALLY a temporal dynamic that takes up the world pragmatically. I think Heidegger is close to this.

But anyway, there remains what I will call the existential encounter. I do not think our "Being understanding" is reducible to pragmatics, and that is it! I am with Husserl, but I would have look more closely. I am reading Husserl's Ideas, bk 1 now (hence why I am so willing to reply on this topic: I am actively reading about exactly this)

Didn't know that Husserl was a mystic?
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: A Question of Truth?

Post by Burning ghost »

You've managed to convince yourself he is a mystic. So what?

You've also failed to present ONE quote from Heidegger on your own terms that backs up his "definition" of "dasein." I have not seen a single person able to give a coherent definition of "dasein" that refers directly to his own words - If you possess a library of Heidegger then please show his words prior to the use of the concept "dasein" and his first initial writings using the term "dasein". I have presented the VERY first instance (as far as I know) of him mentioning "dasein."

Anyway move the conversation here: http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... in#p292327

I am not interested in dragging Husserl, Kant, Descartes or any other person into the discussion. I want one thing; I want a solid and succinct definition of "dasein" that is not based on subjective opinion, but which is backed up by Heidegger's actual words as they were written by him.
AKA badgerjelly
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021