Heidegger's Dasein

by dunsscot 19 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  dunsscot

  To all:

  For those who have trouble understanding basic existential concepts, may I suggest William Barrett's work _Irrational Man_. On pp. 218-219 of this monograph, Barrett succinctly explains the significance of Dasein in Heideggerian thought. Dasein (Heidegger claims) points to human Being-in-the-world. Alternatively, we could also say that Dasein (literally, Being-there in German) is the human field(region) of Being.

  Heidegger employs the term Dasein to avoid making one very critical theoretical mistake. Rene Descartes had previously posited a dualistic form of philosophical anthropology. He had thought of man in terms of the res cogitans and the res extensa. Descartes, in other words, had formulated a dualistic theory of man. He thus made it possible for man to be an object or a subject. This French thinker also believed there was a radical difference between thinking substance (res cogitans) and extended substance (res extensa). Philosophers still have a difficult time trying to "unite" the two substances and figure out how they relate to one another.

  By starting with the cogito, Descartes also implied that man could BE without Being-in-the-world. Heidegger rejected such a dualistic, objectifying, and isolating notion of man. As Barrett words matters: "One of the most remarkable things about Heidegger's description of human existence is that it is made without his using the term 'man' at all! He thereby avoids the assumption that we are dealing with a definite object with a fixed nature--that we already know, in short, what man is."

  By employing the term Dasein, Heidegger also makes it clear that human existence is not confined to the "envelope" of the skin. We are are, says Heidegger, when we are in-the-world.

  Duns the Scot
• 

  Englishman

  Irresistable!

  Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
  Who was very rarely stable
  Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
  Who could drink you under the table
  David Hume could outconsume
  Schopenhauer and Hegel
  And Wittgenstein was a beer swine
  Who was just as sloshed as Shlegel
  There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
  'Bout the raising of the wrist
  Socrates himself was permanently pissed
  
  John Stuart Mill, of his own free will
  After half a pint of shandy was particularly ill
  Plato, they say, could stick it away
  Half a crate of whisky every day
  Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle
  Hobbes was fond of his dram
  And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart
  "I drink, therefore I am."
  But it's Socrates himself that's particularly missed
  A lovely little thinker
  But a bugger when he's pissed

  Englishman.

  ..... fanaticism masquerading beneath a cloak of reasoned logic.
• 

  dunsscot

  Dear Englishman,

  Since you are such an advanced philosophy student, I would like to suggest a more advanced work for you. :-) Otto Poggeler's _Martin Heidegger's Path of Thinking (Der Denkweg Martin Heideggers)_ is an excellent book. Allow me to share a quote:

  "Heidegger replaced the transcendental I with Dasein. Dasein is not an I which constitutes every being while itself lacking the characteristics of a being. Rather, its sense of Being is positively determined as 'factical existence' and thereby set apart from every other being. Existence is being-in-the-world, and indeed a factical having-always-been-in-the-world alongside beings and with others" (Poggeler, 56).

  Cheers!

  Duns the Scot
• 

  Maximus

  Duns,

  I'm frustrated.

  When the apostle Paul presented his argument on Mars Hill, the Areopagus, he used a single familiar quotation to appeal to his audience. He did not cite Plato or other philosophers alive or dead; rather, his simple appeal was clearly expressed in his own words. That message rings clear even today.

  You've had a unique opportunity here to do something similar with those who find themselves groping for God. Even the thread title will be a turnoff to all but a very few persons, who themselves have read the dead Heidegger.

  You won't find me quibblingly criticizing your "Quod erat demonstrandum" [sic] or expressions like "kitten-kaboodle" and many others.

  I do however express my deep sadness at your having missed a huge window to advance the broad concepts of Christianity, without resorting to what ultimately is merely the cerebral.

  I wish you well personally in whatever you do.

  Maximus
• 

  dunsscot

  :Duns,
  I'm frustrated.

  When the apostle Paul presented his argument on Mars Hill, the Areopagus, he used a single familiar quotation to appeal to his audience. He did not cite Plato or other philosophers alive or dead; rather, his simple appeal was clearly expressed in his own words. That message rings clear even today.:

  Admittedly, Paul did not cite Plato or Aristotle, though I think he leaned on their writings. When I am participating in the Christian ministry work--in whatever form it may take--I also refrain from appealing to Plato or Socrates.

  :You've had a unique opportunity here to do something similar with those who find themselves groping for God. Even the thread title will be a turnoff to all but a very few persons, who themselves have read the dead Heidegger.:

  What approach would you suggest, Max? Most folks here do not trust the message from the Bible. They sure do not want to hear what the WT says, except to criticize it. So I decided to take a different approach. I personally think that one can indirectly find God by reading Heidegger. Crazy, ain't it.

  :You won't find me quibblingly criticizing your "Quod erat demonstrandum" [sic] or expressions like "kitten-kaboodle" and many others.:

  I never say "kitten-kaboodle" and I do not know why you typed [sic] by Quod erat demonstrandum. Have I made an inflectional mistake? I normally see it written this way. Even my Latin dictionary has it in this form.

  :I do however express my deep sadness at your having missed a huge window to advance the broad concepts of Christianity, without resorting to what ultimately is merely the cerebral.:

  IMHO, this is not the place to advance the broad concepts of Christianity. I would much rather advance the contemplative life or theistic arguments and subsequently introduce others to the Aristotelian/Thomist way of life. Aristotle's way does find its culmination in the theisitic contemplation of Thomas. Yes my approach is different. But I have used it before with academics and had great success in making them think God's thoughts after him, whereas they formerly did not.

  :I wish you well personally in whatever you do.

  Thanks, Max. I wish you well also.

  Duns the Scot
• 

  hillary_step

  Hello Duns,

  For myself, I would like to thank you for introducing some interesting and in my opinion often valid arguments to this Board. I am sure that even your ‘opposers’ would admit that they have had to focus a little more carefully in understanding your presentations ( I cannot in all fairness call them ideas as they mainly consist of quotations from scholars and visionaries held together by a thin thread of Duns ) than some of the other threads that analyze ad nauseum the validity of the use of four letter words in a five letter world.

  However, I concur with Maximus regarding the frustration of unraveling some of your argumentation. Much of the strength of your argument is lost in the attempt at drawing attention to Duns as the primary objective and the argument is demoted to a secondary role. I have noticed however, that when under pressure you tend to drop the primary objective and display the most important one, your point of your argument.

  Much can be learned from the demeanor of the medieval poets in the simplification of complex issues. Their bread depended on it. Take the Goliards as an example. A group of renegade scholars and apostate clerics who developed a rather complex belief system in a world with little education and where most things were learned by image and not word. The Goliards met the challenge of explaining quickly and simply what they believed by writing easily understood lyrics. Here is an example written at the turn of the C12th:

  My intention is to die
  In the tavern drinking;
  Wine must be at hand, for I
  Want it when I’m sinking.
  Angels when they come shall cry,
  At my frailties winking:
  "Spare this drunkard, God, he’s high,
  Absolutely stinking!"

  I think a person would quite easliy know where they stood on the issue of conventional Christian worship just from that brief quotation.

  Please keep posting Duns, your work is being read and with a measure of appreciation by some of us. Though I am sure that on occasion, we all enjoy fine cuisine, for the nature of this board perhaps ‘plain home cooking’ works best.

  My best to you -- HS
• 

  SixofNine

  That which is not palatable, is not fine cuisine.

  If it is inedible, there is nothing to "chew" on.

  My best to you also Duns, but that means a huge change in your life.
• 

  Commie Chris

  Duns: I have not read many of the dead philosophers you are fond of referring to, and, unlike you, I do not claim to be a great intellectual, but I have read enough to understand what you are trying to say. Soon after you first began posting here (which was not long after I joined this Board) I noticed that you often referred to Sartre, Kant and Heidegger. I then suggested that you move beyond verbose lecturing, which the overwhelming majority on this Board clearly found pompous and condescending, to discuss existentialism and dualism in terms that are clear and relevant for the people and issues on this Board. Specifically, I suggested that you discuss Sartre’s Critique of Dialectical Reason, but in plain english, with no unnecessary gobbledygook. You flatly declined.

  Later (a few days ago) you started a post on the allegedly “monomaniacal” nature of some x-jws. The essential gist of your post was that most people who choose not to believe in your god inevitably end up living lives of “hedonic utility”. I responded by trying to engage you in discussion of the philosophy of social ecology, which I believe leads to a practical ethical system, because it is based on an understanding of human nature which suggests that nature itself impels us towards a society of freedom and equality. You responded with a few criticisms, which reflected your misunderstanding of social ecology (and, incidentally, a misunderstanding of any post-Heidegger dialectical thinking), which I in turn responded to. You then abandoned the thread.

  Why are you so afraid do discuss philosophy in a way that makes it relevant for the issues and people on this Board? In this post you again refer to Aristotle and Heidegger’s rejection of dualism. Accurate, but so what? What’s your point? Can’t you take it to the next level and give it some relevance for real people? How about instead of esoteric lectures about what Heidegger and Aristotle opposed (dualism), writing something, in plain english, about the antithetical idea of “wholeness” - no, not mechanistic or mystical concepts of wholeness, but wholeness as the rationalization of social and natural ecosystems? This is a concept which can be very relevant, particularly if we go beyond mere esoteric philosophical discussion and instead talk about the absence of wholeness in modern capitalist societies and the consequences of that absence. This discussion can and should be held in plain english.

  I’m sure you and I would agree that we live in a world where there is tremendous suffering and dysfunction. We might also agree on many of the causes of this suffering and possible solutions, as long as we stay in the real world and avoid resorting to mysticism / religion. Although I don’t believe in god, I think there might be some common ground between Christians and agnostics on this thread. A discussion of the problems of dualism and wholeness would lead into discussion of “human nature” and practical concepts of freedom, equality and ecology. If you want to discuss philosophy, that’s fine - just try to make it relevant.

  Thanks for your attention. Please help yourself to a free piece of pie on the way out.

  - Commie Chris
• 

  larc

  Duns,

  Could you explain the statement, that according to Heidegger, man goes beyond the envelope of his skin.

  I have a similiar complaint to Chris's. You abandoned my discussion with you regarding free will.
• 

  hillary_step

  SixofNine you said:

  That which is not palatable, is not fine cuisine

  Yes, a good point but next time you walk the streets and see a dog close to a lampost with its hind leg cocked, remember that in Korea 'Fido' is considered fine cuisine!

  HS