Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

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?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Post Reply
Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Spectrum » May 24th, 2018, 3:02 am

Heidegger claimed in his Being and Time, the Question of Being [QOB] was raised during Plato and Aristotle but from then the QOB has been led astray to the present within Western Philosophy.

To Heidegger the Meaning of Being is most fundamental, thus if this is wrong, then everything else that follow is 'wrong' and thus bad philosophy.
It [the Question of Being] sustained the avid research of Plato and Aristotle but from then on ceased to be heard as a thematic question of actual investigation.
What these two thinkers achieved has been preserved in various distorted and "camouflaged" forms down to Hegel's Logic.
And what then was wrested from phenomena by the highest exertion of thought, albeit in fragments and first beginnings, has long since been trivialized.

Not only that. On the foundation of the Greek point of departure for the interpretation of being a dogma has taken shape which not only declares that the question of the meaning of being is superfluous but sanctions its neglect. pg 2
Subsequently those who attempt to raise the question of Being were condemned;
Thus what troubled ancient philosophizing and kept it [Question of being] being so by virtue of its obscurity has become obvious, clear as day, such that whoever persists in asking about it is accused of an error of method.


Heidegger accused Tradition Ontology's emphasis on the forms and cover up the real meaning of what is Being.
The tradition that hereby gains dominance makes what it "transmits" so little accessible that initially and for the most part it [the tradition] covers it [the tradition] over instead.
What has been handed down it [the tradition] hands over to obviousness; it bars access to those original "wellsprings" out of which the traditional categories and concepts were in part genuinely drawn.
The tradition even makes us forget such a provenance [origin] altogether.
Indeed, it [the tradition] makes us wholly incapable of even understanding that such a return [to its origin] is necessary.
The tradition uproots the historicity of Da-sein to such a degree that it only takes an interest in the manifold forms of possible types, directions, and standpoints of philosophizing in the most remote and strangest cultures, and with this interest tries to veil its [tradition’s] own groundlessness.
One significant example is Descartes' "I Think Therefore I AM" which promote an isolated 'I".
Insofar as certain distinctive domains of being become visible in the course of this history and henceforth chiefly dominate the range of problems (Descartes' ego cogito, subject, the "I," reason, spirit, person), the beings[entities] just cited remain unquestioned with respect to the being and structure of their being, which indicates the thorough neglect of the question of being.
But the categorial content of traditional ontology is transferred to these beings[entities] with corresponding formalizations and purely negative restrictions, or else dialectic is called upon to help with an ontological interpretation of the Substantiality of the subject.
Heidegger also look down upon the Philosophy of Realism and Idealism;
Realism and idealism alike thoroughly miss the meaning of the Greek concept of truth from which alone the possibility of something like a "theory of Ideas" can be understood as philosophical knowledge. -34
Throughout Being and Time, Heidegger make it point to 'condemn' Western Philosophy since the Greeks in a very condescending manner. Besides the above, I don't have all the other statements offhand, will post when I come across them again. One thing is he qualified 'Western Philosophy' and did not include Eastern Philosophy which he was familiar with [not as an expert].

Do you agree with Heidegger that Western Philosophy since the Greeks [before Heidegger's 'Being and Time'] should be critique [condemned] as inferior philosophy re the meaning of Being?
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 239
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by chewybrian » May 24th, 2018, 6:46 am

Descartes got his first point exactly right. It caused him no distress, as arguably it should have, as he was surely planning to work right back to God from the start. It's the working back to God that is the flaw, not the honest observation that he is thinking. I exist as a series of thoughts or perceptions, if nothing else. All else is subject to proof, but this first bit is already shown by the questioning itself.

From the discussions I've seen here, the 'modern' approach seems to deny the self, combining cause and effect with evolution to deny free will in even the slightest form. The conclusion seems to be that reality has fooled me into thinking that I am thinking. This flies in the face of perception, which is the only tent pole I've got.

If any action I choose will turn out to have been the only possible option, then why bother questioning this or anything? If the argument leads to such an illogical conclusion, then I rightly question the validity of the argument. Instead, these folks who treat science as religion simply say that reality requires them to act as if they have free will, even though they are smart enough to see that free will is an illusion. They dismiss contradictions in their position as quickly as Descartes and so many others would do in favor of God.

What we need to work out is why we exist, not if, and we should direct our efforts there. We need to decide what to do with our existence, rather than questioning it. If I've followed your point, then it seems backward to me. We went off the rails when we began to question the if instead of the why.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Spectrum » May 25th, 2018, 1:47 am

chewybrian wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 6:46 am
Descartes got his first point exactly right. It caused him no distress, as arguably it should have, as he was surely planning to work right back to God from the start. It's the working back to God that is the flaw, not the honest observation that he is thinking. I exist as a series of thoughts or perceptions, if nothing else. All else is subject to proof, but this first bit is already shown by the questioning itself.

From the discussions I've seen here, the 'modern' approach seems to deny the self, combining cause and effect with evolution to deny free will in even the slightest form. The conclusion seems to be that reality has fooled me into thinking that I am thinking. This flies in the face of perception, which is the only tent pole I've got.

If any action I choose will turn out to have been the only possible option, then why bother questioning this or anything? If the argument leads to such an illogical conclusion, then I rightly question the validity of the argument. Instead, these folks who treat science as religion simply say that reality requires them to act as if they have free will, even though they are smart enough to see that free will is an illusion. They dismiss contradictions in their position as quickly as Descartes and so many others would do in favor of God.

What we need to work out is why we exist, not if, and we should direct our efforts there. We need to decide what to do with our existence, rather than questioning it. If I've followed your point, then it seems backward to me. We went off the rails when we began to question the if instead of the why.
The issue in this OP is the Question of 'Being' and ontology.
Heidegger claimed Descartes identified an isolated "I" i.e. 'I AM' which is a soul that survives physical death but ontologically cannot prove such a 'being'. Descartes posited another being, i.e. God, the supreme Being which he had problem proving as well.
Thus whatever philosophy [e.g. realism] that relied on Descartes' premises are false ontologically.

Heidegger recognized Descartes' contribution to Science but that is beside the point with regard to philosophical ontology.

Personally I do not agree with Heidegger's claim that ALL Western philosophies after Plato & Aristotle up until his new 'theory of being' are ungrounded, i.e. false ontologically.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 239
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by chewybrian » May 25th, 2018, 9:06 am

Spectrum wrote:
May 25th, 2018, 1:47 am
The issue in this OP is the Question of 'Being' and ontology.
Heidegger claimed Descartes identified an isolated "I" i.e. 'I AM' which is a soul that survives physical death but ontologically cannot prove such a 'being'. Descartes posited another being, i.e. God, the supreme Being which he had problem proving as well.
Thus whatever philosophy [e.g. realism] that relied on Descartes' premises are false ontologically.

Heidegger recognized Descartes' contribution to Science but that is beside the point with regard to philosophical ontology.

Personally I do not agree with Heidegger's claim that ALL Western philosophies after Plato & Aristotle up until his new 'theory of being' are ungrounded, i.e. false ontologically.
Perhaps I am fighting another battle. My understanding of Heidegger comes second hand. I have not read him directly, on the basis that (please correct me if I am wrong) he was an unapologetic Nazi.

From what I know, he wants to shake up our view of everything, to warn us about switching to auto-pilot. We may accept and avoid questioning ideas about things when they come loaded in the language we use to describe things, for example. Or, our common understanding of the best use of objects might block us from seeing other potential uses. I hope I can get to such valid points through other sources (Camus, maybe?).

Are you, or Heidegger, arguing Descartes' initial point of departure, though? Isn't "prove you do not exist" an impossible task, as you must exist to do the disproving? I'll roll along with questioning ideas born from Descartes flimsier proposals, but not the many that extend from "I exist, therefore I am". What I see here in the forum (and I thought this thread was one more example) is that most of us seem to have taken this metaphysical questioning process a bit too far. We feel we must question everything, including our own existence, at least in terms of free will.

Free will is self-evident and necessary, and therefore should be accepted unless it can be disproved. If duality is necessary for this, so be it. There is a pretty important difference between 'alive' and 'not alive', after all; I can't take a dead girl to the prom. Why take the default position that free will is an illusion if it can not be proved or disproved?

If you accept that you have a free will, and assent to the idea that others have one as well, then ethics naturally follows and seems more critical than metaphysics. People need to be seen as ends rather than means before we can get on to worrying about anything else. If I matter, it follows that you matter. If I don't, it follows that you don't, that nothing matters. When one takes science, metaphysics, mysticism, or whatever, to be above ethics, what is there in any of these to guard against Nazism, or any other such dangers? Doesn't Heidegger himself illustrate the danger of sailing without the rudder of ethics, steered by the hand of free will?

Am I wrong to dismiss Heidegger on the basis of having been a Nazi?
Am I wrong to associate his theories with a denial of free will, either by him or those who follow him?
Am I wrong about the tone of the forum?
Am I wrong about free will?

I look forward to being shown to be wrong, as I can learn or grow. Though, to be shown wrong on free will, I might have to metaphorically die in the process. So, my attempts at intellectual honesty might be hindered by my instinct for self-preservation.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Spectrum » May 26th, 2018, 12:22 am

chewybrian wrote:
May 25th, 2018, 9:06 am
Spectrum wrote:
May 25th, 2018, 1:47 am
The issue in this OP is the Question of 'Being' and ontology.
Heidegger claimed Descartes identified an isolated "I" i.e. 'I AM' which is a soul that survives physical death but ontologically cannot prove such a 'being'. Descartes posited another being, i.e. God, the supreme Being which he had problem proving as well.
Thus whatever philosophy [e.g. realism] that relied on Descartes' premises are false ontologically.

Heidegger recognized Descartes' contribution to Science but that is beside the point with regard to philosophical ontology.

Personally I do not agree with Heidegger's claim that ALL Western philosophies after Plato & Aristotle up until his new 'theory of being' are ungrounded, i.e. false ontologically.
Perhaps I am fighting another battle. My understanding of Heidegger comes second hand. I have not read him directly, on the basis that (please correct me if I am wrong) he was an unapologetic Nazi.

From what I know, he wants to shake up our view of everything, to warn us about switching to auto-pilot. We may accept and avoid questioning ideas about things when they come loaded in the language we use to describe things, for example. Or, our common understanding of the best use of objects might block us from seeing other potential uses. I hope I can get to such valid points through other sources (Camus, maybe?).
You are right on the above. You may get some ideas of Heidegger from other sources and existentialists, but you will not get the critical nuances of his philosophy. So one has to read the primary sources.
Are you, or Heidegger, arguing Descartes' initial point of departure, though? Isn't "prove you do not exist" an impossible task, as you must exist to do the disproving? I'll roll along with questioning ideas born from Descartes flimsier proposals, but not the many that extend from "I exist, therefore I am". What I see here in the forum (and I thought this thread was one more example) is that most of us seem to have taken this metaphysical questioning process a bit too far. We feel we must question everything, including our own existence, at least in terms of free will.
Philosophically, yes, one has to understand what is 'being' actually about bcos according to Heidegger Western Philosophy until his time was led astray.
Free will is self-evident and necessary, and therefore should be accepted unless it can be disproved. If duality is necessary for this, so be it. There is a pretty important difference between 'alive' and 'not alive', after all; I can't take a dead girl to the prom. Why take the default position that free will is an illusion if it can not be proved or disproved?
Free will is definitely self-evident but it has to be qualified as not absolute, i.e. conditional. E.g. within a prison, a prisoner is 'free' to do what he wants but there are always conditions and rules of the prison and overall the prisoner is not free relative to the outside world.
Similarly an ordinary person will feel free, can even be free to fly to the moon, but there are loads of subliminal and other conditions which restrict one's freedom. So free will is never absolutely free.

I am not particularly interested in the concept of free will because its ultimate is caught up with the question of 'Does God Exist?' to give humans free will so God is absolved of any responsibility for his creations' evil acts so can punish humans to Hell.
If you accept that you have a free will, and assent to the idea that others have one as well, then ethics naturally follows and seems more critical than metaphysics. People need to be seen as ends rather than means before we can get on to worrying about anything else. If I matter, it follows that you matter. If I don't, it follows that you don't, that nothing matters. When one takes science, metaphysics, mysticism, or whatever, to be above ethics, what is there in any of these to guard against Nazism, or any other such dangers? Doesn't Heidegger himself illustrate the danger of sailing without the rudder of ethics, steered by the hand of free will?
I would not leverage ethics on the concept of free will. My view on Morality and Ethics is more to Kantian and I do not want to go into details here.
One limitation of Heidegger is he did not emphasize on Morality and Ethics in detail in his BT. His linkage to Ethics is via his concept of Authenticity and Inauthenticity which is very general thus allowed leakages for him to slip into Nationalism. As far as the Philosophy of Ethics and Morality is concern I would skip Heidegger totally.
Am I wrong to dismiss Heidegger on the basis of having been a Nazi?
Am I wrong to associate his theories with a denial of free will, either by him or those who follow him?
Am I wrong about the tone of the forum?
Am I wrong about free will?
I don't agree with all of Heidegger's views and I don't think we should dismiss him because he was a Nazi. Philosophically if one has omitted Heidegger's philosophies there would be a significant hole in one's philosophical database. There are tons of very useful philosophical ideas from Heidegger.
I admit I have not fully grasp Heidegger's view on free will yet. However, with a rough view of his idea of free will at present, I don't see it as significant till proven wrong.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 239
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by chewybrian » May 26th, 2018, 6:32 am

Spectrum wrote:
May 26th, 2018, 12:22 am
Free will is definitely self-evident but it has to be qualified as not absolute, i.e. conditional. E.g. within a prison, a prisoner is 'free' to do what he wants but there are always conditions and rules of the prison and overall the prisoner is not free relative to the outside world.
You nailed it, and this is the only definition of free will for which I am standing firm. I'm sure I could get to this idea of the prison, at least, from Camus.
Spectrum wrote:
May 26th, 2018, 12:22 am
Similarly an ordinary person will feel free, can even be free to fly to the moon, but there are loads of subliminal and other conditions which restrict one's freedom. So free will is never absolutely free.
The ability to feel free is virtually limitless. There are few if any restraints on your attitude or interpretation of events. From my favorite, Epictetus:

"Sickness is a hindrance to the body, but not to your ability to choose, unless that is your choice. Lameness is a hindrance to the leg, but not to your ability to choose..."

Internal limits can gradually be smashed by will. You can push back on external limits, but you'll rarely get far, and the outcome is never in your control.
Spectrum wrote:
May 26th, 2018, 12:22 am
I am not particularly interested in the concept of free will because its ultimate is caught up with the question of 'Does God Exist?' to give humans free will so God is absolved of any responsibility for his creations' evil acts so can punish humans to Hell.
Of course these things go together like peanut butter and jelly for lots of people. But, since I avoid sugar, I always eat peanut butter with no jelly. Ethics are still important without God. You need people to respect your free will to a certain degree to have a decent life, and you'll have to respect theirs in return. I like the stoic view that virtue is its own reward, and the burdens that come with a dishonest life are not worth bearing.
Spectrum wrote:
May 26th, 2018, 12:22 am
One limitation of Heidegger is he did not emphasize on Morality and Ethics in detail in his BT. His linkage to Ethics is via his concept of Authenticity and Inauthenticity which is very general thus allowed leakages for him to slip into Nationalism. As far as the Philosophy of Ethics and Morality is concern I would skip Heidegger totally.
Authenticity is a slippery concept. Kierkegaard might say you need God, and Nietzche might say no, right? Would authenticity pulled from Sarte allow the prospect of being a Nazi as well? Would you at least be required to believe that Nazism was morally correct somehow to be an authentic Nazi? The average Nazi seems a pretty good example of the inauthentic man. Like the people in the Milgram experiment, their desire to belong is perhaps greater than their sense of self, and group ethics crushes individual ethics. The authentic Nazi, I think, would be the rare one who deep down thought Nazism was right, knowing all the horrors that went with it. Somehow he would think their goals justified the means.

There are a million things I'd like to learn, so the Nazi issue is enough to at least keep Heidegger pretty far down the list for now.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Spectrum » May 26th, 2018, 10:12 pm

chewybrian wrote:
May 26th, 2018, 6:32 am
Authenticity is a slippery concept. Kierkegaard might say you need God, and Nietzche might say no, right?
Yes.
Would authenticity pulled from Sarte allow the prospect of being a Nazi as well? Would you at least be required to believe that Nazism was morally correct somehow to be an authentic Nazi? The average Nazi seems a pretty good example of the inauthentic man. Like the people in the Milgram experiment, their desire to belong is perhaps greater than their sense of self, and group ethics crushes individual ethics. The authentic Nazi, I think, would be the rare one who deep down thought Nazism was right, knowing all the horrors that went with it. Somehow he would think their goals justified the means.

There are a million things I'd like to learn, so the Nazi issue is enough to at least keep Heidegger pretty far down the list for now.
I have not grasped Sartre fully, so I an unable to give a view on the above point re Sartre.

Heidegger's 'Authenticity vs Inauthenticity' is not something like 'good vs evil' but very complex and he dug very deep into the bare self to explain these concepts.

Heidegger believed the self is loaded with lots of burdensome existential elements that 'cover up' and prevent one from understanding the true being of the self thus leading one towards the inauthentic. To be authentic one has to transcend these elements and let the true being of the self unfolds authentically.

However the limitation is Heidegger did not venture into the practical of how and did not guide authenticity with a detailed system of Morality and Ethics. This is the reason Heidegger ended with Nazism. If Heidegger had understood and lived the concept of the moral respect for Basic Human Dignity for each individual person, he would not have adopted Nazism [unless coerced].
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2806
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Burning ghost » June 6th, 2018, 4:21 am

I cannot help view Heidegger as a pretentious hack - Nazi or not I don’t really care.

It has come to light recently that much of his “original ideas” were not actually his ideas. Given that his teacher, Husserl, wrote reams and reams of stuff and that the ideas Heidegger claimed reknown for were written down by Husserl years before Heidegger I am inclined to view him as nothing more than a verbose trickster who assumed Husserl’s work would be erased by the new establishment (note: Husserl went into exile because of Heidegger and died alone and relatively unknown.)

All of Heidegger’s work relies on one term Da-Sein. This is, and I’ve wasted enough time looking for this, not explicated by Heidegger ANYWHERE in his work. He does make several vague definitions, but never goes into depth on what he means - likely because he was using another ideas and that those ideas were ideas he didn’t understand the reach of (evidence for this would be in him clinging to hermeneutics and lazily equaging it with phenomenology at large.)

I would add that attempts by people on this forum to dispute this have only been able to offer “you need to read more”, yet when I ask for an explanation they inevitably fail to do so and quickly go silent or point out that maybe I am unable to grasp the concept - a possibility, but I am open minded enough, not particularly dim-witted, but often slow on the uptake.

Heidegger didn’t try to build from Husserl work, he tried to bury it without trace. He did at least print acknowledgement to Husserl in his earlier work. Also, it is worth considering that Heidegger had not training or background in the natural sciences. Such a blinkered approach to ideas of “being” from a position of technical ignorance produce over extension.
AKA badgerjelly

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3404
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Fooloso4 » July 4th, 2018, 12:43 pm

Spectrum:
To Heidegger the Meaning of Being is most fundamental, thus if this is wrong, then everything else that follow is 'wrong' and thus bad philosophy.
Heidegger ascribed to the notion that with everything that becomes present something is occluded. It is not that philosophy since Plato and Aristotle is simply wrong and bad philosophy but that its movement toward something was a move away from something else. The question of the meaning of Being has been neglected. If we look at the history of philosophy it appears to support this claim. In order to return to the question of Being, Heidegger thought it necessary not only to point to this neglect but to make it possible to reintroduce the question by showing how philosophy has strayed from it and made it problematic to discuss within the tradition's assumptions, methodologies, and language.
The tradition uproots the historicity of Da-sein to such a degree that it only takes an interest in the manifold forms of possible types, directions, and standpoints of philosophizing in the most remote and strangest cultures, and with this interest tries to veil its [tradition’s] own groundlessness.

There are two points: first, following Hegel, Heidegger emphasizes the importance of time or history. Second, philosophy hides from itself its own groundlessness. Plato and Aristotle point to the aporetic nature of philosophical inquiry, but the tradition comes to focus on certainty and foundations. Primary for Heidegger is the understanding of ‘aletheia’ - to bring out of hiding, to bring into openness, to disclose. ‘Lethe’ means concealment or forgetfulness. So, again, it is not a question of the tradition as being wrong, but of what has been concealed from us within the movement of history as it moves away from its wellspring. Heidegger sees the development of the tradition as once again making it possible to return to the fundamental question of Being.

But the movement away from the question of Being was not simply misdirection. It is part of the history of Being, its self movement, its self concealment and disclosure in time.
Heidegger claimed Descartes identified an isolated "I" …
What does this mean? It is a rejection of the notion of a timeless, independent subject who determines truth via reason. It ignores man’s historical situatedness and the role played by Being or what is given to thought.

Do you agree with Heidegger that Western Philosophy since the Greeks [before Heidegger's 'Being and Time'] should be critique [condemned] as inferior philosophy re the meaning of Being?
I do not agree with this assessment of Heidegger. The practice of philosophy as critique is something we find throughout the tradition. To critique is not to condemn. It is not simply that philosophy since the Greeks is inferior but that philosophy can never be knowledge of the whole. All philosophy is in this sense inferior in that it fails to accomplish what is desires, that is, knowledge of the whole. Heidegger’s indebtedness to philosophers since Plato and Aristotle means that he is able to see things that were hidden to the Greeks, while at the same time acknowledging that there are things that were apparent to them that remain hidden from us. The question of Being should not be a matter of forgetfulness of time. Both the disclosure of Being and the occlusion of Being occur within time. He rejects the notion of a timeless Being; but this is a notion that both arose and became possible to reject in time, that is, as part of the tradition. Heidegger’s relation to the tradition - whether he was within the tradition or stands outside of it is still a matter of dispute. As I see it, he does not and cannot stand outside the tradition, but he is critical of the movement within that tradition. His intent is not to cause a rupture but to repair one, but to do so he must show where that rupture is and how it came to be.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Spectrum » July 5th, 2018, 1:59 am

Fooloso4 wrote:
July 4th, 2018, 12:43 pm
..
Do you agree with Heidegger that Western Philosophy since the Greeks [before Heidegger's 'Being and Time'] should be critique [condemned] as inferior philosophy re the meaning of Being?
I do not agree with this assessment of Heidegger. The practice of philosophy as critique is something we find throughout the tradition. To critique is not to condemn. It is not simply that philosophy since the Greeks is inferior but that philosophy can never be knowledge of the whole. All philosophy is in this sense inferior in that it fails to accomplish what is desires, that is, knowledge of the whole. Heidegger’s indebtedness to philosophers since Plato and Aristotle means that he is able to see things that were hidden to the Greeks, while at the same time acknowledging that there are things that were apparent to them that remain hidden from us. The question of Being should not be a matter of forgetfulness of time. Both the disclosure of Being and the occlusion of Being occur within time. He rejects the notion of a timeless Being; but this is a notion that both arose and became possible to reject in time, that is, as part of the tradition. Heidegger’s relation to the tradition - whether he was within the tradition or stands outside of it is still a matter of dispute. As I see it, he does not and cannot stand outside the tradition, but he is critical of the movement within that tradition. His intent is not to cause a rupture but to repair one, but to do so he must show where that rupture is and how it came to be.
Here are some quotes from Heidegger where he insisted the Question & Meaning of Being and Time are the critical ground for all knowledge. [In green = my own subheadings]
The Fundamental Concept of Each Field of Knowledge Must be Researched to Guide all Positive Investigation
Fundamental concepts are determinations in which the area of knowledge underlying all the thematic objects of a science attain an understanding that precedes and guides all positive investigation.
Accordingly these [fundamental] concepts first receive their genuine evidence and "grounding" only in a correspondingly preliminary research into the area of knowledge itself.

That Preliminary Research is Interpreting Beings of the Basic Constitution of their Being.
But since each of these areas [of knowledge] arises from the domain of beings[entities] themselves, this preliminary research that creates the fundamental concepts amounts to nothing else than interpreting these beings[entities] in terms of the basic constitution of their being. 10

QOB Aims a priori condition of the possibility of the Field of Knowledge and critically, the deeper ontology of Being that precede these Fields
The Question of Being thus aims at an a priori condition of the possibility
not only of the sciences which investigate beings[entities] of such and such a type - and are thereby already involved in an understanding of being;
but it aims also at the condition of the possibility of the [deeper] ontologies which precede the ontic sciences and found them. 11

All Ontology Must Clarified MOB as it Fundamental Else it is Blind
All ontology, no matter how rich and tightly knit a system of categories it has at its disposal, remains fundamentally blind and perverts its innermost intent, if it has not previously clarified the meaning of being sufficiently and grasped this clarification as its fundamental task.

Ontological Research [Science] Itself Establish Ontological Priority But it is not the only One re Progress
Ontological research itself, correctly understood, gives the Question of Being its ontological priority over and above merely resuming an honored tradition and making progress on a problem until now opaque.
But this scholarly, scientific priority is not the only one.
11

But now it has become evident that the Ontological Analysis of Da-sein in general constitutes Fundamental Ontology, that Da-sein consequently functions as the being [entity] that is to be interrogated fundamentally in advance with respect to its being. 15

Only when the fundamental structures of Da-sein are adequately worked out with explicit orientation toward the problem of being will the previous results [of prior philosophers] of the interpretation of Da-sein receive their existential justification. 16

This task as a whole requires that the [new] concept of time thus gained be distinguished from the common [vulgar] understanding of it [Time]. 17

The tradition uproots the historicity of Da-sein to such a degree that it only takes an interest in the manifold forms of possible types, directions, and standpoints of philosophizing in the most remote and strangest cultures, and with this interest tries to veil its [tradition’s] own groundlessness. 21
Logically if the grounding premise is wrong or false, then whatever conclusions that follow must be false - deductive GIGO.

With that Heidegger seem to have an arrogant air to 'condemn' philosophers from Plato, Aristotle [gave some praise] to Kant, Hegel, Bergson, etc. that the views of these philosophers are based on shaky grounds. This is what I gathered from reading the whole of BT [but to be specific I'll have to reread the whole BT to pick the relevant statements to support this].

Granted Heidegger did expand the idea of Being in BT, personally I do not agree with Heidegger on some points. I agree some philosophers did not emphasize on 'Being' but Kant and others did it their ways to represent Being which Heidegger could not or deliberately did not understand.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Spectrum » July 5th, 2018, 2:13 am

Burning ghost wrote:
June 6th, 2018, 4:21 am
..
All of Heidegger’s work relies on one term Da-Sein. This is, and I’ve wasted enough time looking for this, not explicated by Heidegger ANYWHERE in his work. He does make several vague definitions, but never goes into depth on what he means - likely because he was using another ideas and that those ideas were ideas he didn’t understand the reach of (evidence for this would be in him clinging to hermeneutics and lazily equaging it with phenomenology at large.)

I would add that attempts by people on this forum to dispute this have only been able to offer “you need to read more”, yet when I ask for an explanation they inevitably fail to do so and quickly go silent or point out that maybe I am unable to grasp the concept - a possibility, but I am open minded enough, not particularly dim-witted, but often slow on the uptake.
..
Heidegger agreed the idea of 'being' in indefinable;
Indeed, "being" cannot be understood as a being.
Enti non additur aliqua natura:
Being cannot be defined by attributing beings[entities] to it.

Being cannot be derived from higher concepts by way of definition and cannot be represented by lower ones.
But does it follow from this that "being” can no longer constitute a problem? Not at all.
We can conclude only that "being" is not something like a-being.*
Thus the manner of definition of beings[entities] which has its justification within limits -the "definition" of traditional logic which is itself rooted in ancient ontology-cannot be applied to being.
The indefinability of being does not dispense with the question of its meaning but forces it upon us. 4
Since Being is supposedly not definable and that Dasein is the exemplary representation of 'being' Dasein is not expected to be defined precisely. Nevertheless we should still question the meaning of Being and its sub-representation, Dasein.

Heidegger did however introduced some qualified definitions of 'Dasein' but these definitions are limited to context.

In the perspective of a hermeneutical approach what is dasein has to represented by whatever is described of Dasein within the whole of BT. So far I have extracted 23 pages [there are more] of statements where Dasein is described and all these descriptions form the meaning of Dasein in the context of the question and meaning of Being.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3404
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Fooloso4 » July 5th, 2018, 9:11 am

Spectrum:
Logically if the grounding premise is wrong or false, then whatever conclusions that follow must be false - deductive GIGO.
The problem is that the “grounding premise” is without grounds. Heidegger attempts to deconstruct the edifice of philosophy, to lay bear its foundations, in order to show that it is not built on unchanging, necessary, rational, axiomatic grounds that stand as the starting point of philosophy. Being is the ground in the sense of that from which all emerges and return, but it is the precondition of our thinking and being rather than a first premise. When Descartes says “I think therefore I am”, this is not wrong or false or deductive garbage. It is, as Descartes said, his Archimedean point from which he could move the world. And he did. The advent of subjectivism was a crucial moment in the movement of thought. It is only from the vantage point of further philosophical development that Heidegger is able to inquire into what remains unthought. Each step leads toward something and away from something else. This is one of Heidegger’s favorite themes - disclosure is always at the same time closure, a closing off, revealing is concealing. Unlike Hegel who held that the movement of thought has come to its completion, for Heidegger the possibilities of what will be given by Being to be thought is open-ended. It is from his vantage point in time that he is able to be critical of earlier philosophers, and it will be from the vantage point of time that others will be critical of his or any other philosophy that emerges.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Spectrum » July 6th, 2018, 12:53 am

Fooloso4 wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 9:11 am
Spectrum:
Logically if the grounding premise is wrong or false, then whatever conclusions that follow must be false - deductive GIGO.
The problem is that the “grounding premise” is without grounds. Heidegger attempts to deconstruct the edifice of philosophy, to lay bear its foundations, in order to show that it is not built on unchanging, necessary, rational, axiomatic grounds that stand as the starting point of philosophy. Being is the ground in the sense of that from which all emerges and return, but it is the precondition of our thinking and being rather than a first premise. When Descartes says “I think therefore I am”, this is not wrong or false or deductive garbage. It is, as Descartes said, his Archimedean point from which he could move the world. And he did. The advent of subjectivism was a crucial moment in the movement of thought. It is only from the vantage point of further philosophical development that Heidegger is able to inquire into what remains unthought. Each step leads toward something and away from something else. This is one of Heidegger’s favorite themes - disclosure is always at the same time closure, a closing off, revealing is concealing. Unlike Hegel who held that the movement of thought has come to its completion, for Heidegger the possibilities of what will be given by Being to be thought is open-ended. It is from his vantage point in time that he is able to be critical of earlier philosophers, and it will be from the vantage point of time that others will be critical of his or any other philosophy that emerges.
Heidegger recognized there is no absolute ground for Being, thus his condemnation of those who introduced flimsy grounds to support their theories.
Despite the groundlessness of Being, Heidegger expect a reasonable basis and formulation for the question and meaning of Being via hermeneutics and phenomenology that will enable to show whatever 'it' is. I interpret Heidegger's 'it' as an emergence, processes and it is never an absolute 'thing' per se.

Heidegger critiqued Kant as wrong but I believe Heidegger misinterpreted Kant and never understood the essence of Kant's philosophy.
Kant postulated whatever the ground of Being, it [thing-in-itself] is an illusion which is in alignment with most of the philosophies of the East. The future of greater disclosure of this will have to be via neuro-psychology or neuro-spirituality.

From what I have read of Heidegger, he opened his pandora box of being and groped around [expanded on the issue] but was not able to come to a closure even whilst a later-Heidegger.
Kant on the other hand had come to a closure [model-wise and epistemologically] on the issue of Being which inherently has no definite answers.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3404
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Fooloso4 » July 6th, 2018, 9:08 am

All philosophies, including Heidegger's own, are limited by what is given or present in time. In this sense you might say that all of them are wrong, but if wrong stands in distinction from right then, since there is no philosophy that can be right, the distinction loses its meaning.
I interpret Heidegger's 'it' as an emergence, processes and it is never an absolute 'thing' per se.
‘It’ is not a ‘thing’, absolute or otherwise. The Being of beings is not another being or thing.
I believe Heidegger misinterpreted Kant and never understood the essence of Kant's philosophy.
That may be. It is a common complaint that philosophers misunderstand each other, but whatever you deem to be the essence of Kant’s philosophy, it does not address the question of being qua being, that is, the question formulated in Aristotle’s Metaphysics.
Kant postulated whatever the ground of Being, it [thing-in-itself] is an illusion which is in alignment with most of the philosophies of the East.
First, where does Kant call the thing-in-itself an illusion? As I read Kant, that makes not sense. Our understanding is always mediated, that is, according to the categories of the understanding of the human mind. Second, the question of the thing-in-itself is a question about a being, not the Being of beings.
The future of greater disclosure of this will have to be via neuro-psychology or neuro-spirituality.
If you mean the ability to see things as they are in themselves, their ‘suchness’, that is an ancient promise of Eastern practice, a matter of faith for those of us who have not attained enlightenment. I see no indication that Kant thought such a thing possible via neuro-psychology or neuro-spirituality or otherwise. Whether such a thing is possible or not, the ability to see things (beings) as they are in themselves still leaves the problem of Being open. If such a thing becomes possible it becomes possible in time via Being, which remains beyond what is disclosed by or through the being man.
From what I have read of Heidegger, he opened his pandora box of being and groped around [expanded on the issue] but was not able to come to a closure even whilst a later-Heidegger.
Of course he is not able to come to a closure. Any closure is a closing off of Being. What will be is not something we have access to. The later-Heidegger orients himself toward the future. It is the future that determines the present. The present is the presencing of what is present, Being is thought of as the giving into presence (is gibt).

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!

Post by Spectrum » July 7th, 2018, 3:19 am

Fooloso4 wrote:
July 6th, 2018, 9:08 am
All philosophies, including Heidegger's own, are limited by what is given or present in time. In this sense you might say that all of them are wrong, but if wrong stands in distinction from right then, since there is no philosophy that can be right, the distinction loses its meaning.
I agree there is no 'right' answer in philosophy and Russell indicated,
Russell in Problems of Philosophy wrote:Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; ..
What I gathered from BT is Heidegger implied all prior Western Views of Being to his theory of Being are Wrong and inferior.


I believe Heidegger misinterpreted Kant and never understood the essence of Kant's philosophy.
That may be. It is a common complaint that philosophers misunderstand each other, but whatever you deem to be the essence of Kant’s philosophy, it does not address the question of being qua being, that is, the question formulated in Aristotle’s Metaphysics.
Kant did address the issue of Metaphysics, Kant asked 'Is Metaphysics Possible?' [i.e. ontology] in comparison to the possibility of Science and Mathematics. Kant's answer is Metaphysics [ontology] is impossible because one is chasing an illusion in ontology.

Kant and Heidegger have different definition for 'ontology'. For Kant, ontology means the study of being as restricted to an independent 'essence' or 'substance' as presented by the traditionalists and Descartes. For Heidegger, ontology is generally the study of being, the being of beings.
Kant postulated whatever the ground of Being, it [thing-in-itself] is an illusion which is in alignment with most of the philosophies of the East.
First, where does Kant call the thing-in-itself an illusion? As I read Kant, that makes not sense. Our understanding is always mediated, that is, according to the categories of the understanding of the human mind. Second, the question of the thing-in-itself is a question about a being, not the Being of beings.
Kant did not specify specifically 'the thing-in-itself' is an illusion. However in the context of the whole argument within his Critique of Pure Reason, the 'thing-in-itself' is an illusion.

For knowledge, Kant start with experience and sensibility then categories [pure concepts of understanding]. Then he used the noumenon [thing-in-itself] as a limiting ceiling to empiricism. The noumenon is equivalent to an empirical being - a fake thing.
Kant in CPR wrote:The Concept of a Noumenon [aka thing-in-itself] is thus a merely limiting Concept, the Function of which is to curb the pretensions of Sensibility; and it is therefore only of negative employment.

At the same time it [Noumenon] is no arbitrary invention; it is Bound up with the Limitation of Sensibility, though it [Noumenon] cannot affirm anything Positive beyond the Field of Sensibility. B311
But then there is an innate tendency of the mind to stretch [based on pure reason] to a being [thing-in-itself] beyond sensibility to the field of rationalism. To Kant, this reified thing-in-itsel [the Being of all beings] is an illusion.
Kant in CPR wrote:There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses [beyond sensibility], and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept, and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.
These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.
They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him. B397
As you can see, while Heidegger toyed with the idea of Being of beings and got lost, Kant argued soundly to dismiss this concept with his Copernican Revolution, i.e. turning towards the real life of human beings rather than the generated illusions by humans.

The future of greater disclosure of this will have to be via neuro-psychology or neuro-spirituality.
If you mean the ability to see things as they are in themselves, their ‘suchness’, that is an ancient promise of Eastern practice, a matter of faith for those of us who have not attained enlightenment. I see no indication that Kant thought such a thing possible via neuro-psychology or neuro-spirituality or otherwise. Whether such a thing is possible or not, the ability to see things (beings) as they are in themselves still leaves the problem of Being open. If such a thing becomes possible it becomes possible in time via Being, which remains beyond what is disclosed by or through the being man.
Seeing things as they are is the same as seeing oneself as one is, i.e. nothing.
We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis. 1
Failing of satisfactory progress of explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest.

A similar experiment can be tried in Metaphysics, as regards the Intuition of Objects. -B xvii
Kant did not have the opportunity of the neurosciences during his time, but his direction of going inward will inevitably invoke the reliance of the neurosciences to understand the reification of an illusory Being of all beings, i.e. the illusory thing-in-itself.
From what I have read of Heidegger, he opened his pandora box of being and groped around [expanded on the issue] but was not able to come to a closure even whilst a later-Heidegger.
Of course he is not able to come to a closure. Any closure is a closing off of Being. What will be is not something we have access to. The later-Heidegger orients himself toward the future. It is the future that determines the present. The present is the presencing of what is present, Being is thought of as the giving into presence (is gibt).
I meant closure in terms of setting up a sound Framework and System to study the problem. Kant like Science came up with a sound model of Framework and System that enable one to understand Being and its usefulness for morality and ethics.
Heidegger deconstructed the traditional system and generated useful leads but was unable to get back to anything systematic.

I understand Heidegger's view re Dasein is always the present, i.e. ahead of itself.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Post Reply