Poor heathen bastards. If they would only have translated more carefully! It was about throwing table scraps to the dogs, not dogs being table scraps for non jews.
Heidegger's Dasein
by dunsscot 19 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
joelbear
I love philosophy but I have to have it explained to me pretty simplistically before I can grasp it. I took a philosophy class last semester and drove the teacher crazy with questions.
It seems to me that all the fancy talk and theories all comes down to:
1) Is there anything outside physical existence? This leads to a lot of other questions but seems to be a root question.
2) Depending on the answer to question 1, how do we determine how to conduct ourselves? Again, this leads to innumerable questions, but seems to be a root question.
I have a simplistic philosophy called Lifeism that tries to answer the same questions.
Lifeism theorizes that there is nothing outside physical reality, but that the whole of physical living reality is greater than the sum of its parts and that this greater whole is god. We and everything else is part of this same contiguous whole and therefore when we hurt any part of it, we hurt the whole and at the same time hurt ourselves.
I still have much to learn, but the more I read and study and think and discuss it, the more I come back to Matthew 7:12 as the root of truth.
Thanks for an interesting thread.
Joel
-
dunsscot
Dear Chris:
I think I explained why I did not pick up on the discussion about social ecology. I have some comments to make later in reply to your post. But I assure you that I am not afraid to discuss the practical aspect of philosophy with anyone. But I think that one must thoroughly work out a theory in technical terms before he or she can convert the said theory into praxis.
Larc:
I told you that I would comment on the "fre will" thread today and I will keep my promise. I had to work today and take care of some other important business.
Later,
DanDuns the Scot
-
larc
Duns,
Could you also address my question regarding a person beyond the envelope of the skin?
On your last post, why did you use the word praxis instead of the word practice?
-
Commie Chris
Duns: Your comment about working out theory before converting the theory into practise (or praxis if you prefer) is very odd in this context. Social ecology is a thoroughly dialectical philosophy, and simultaneously thoroughly concerned with praxis. By definition, it is impossible to discuss such a practical philosophy in the abstract.
-
dunsscot
:Duns,
Could you explain the statement, that according to Heidegger, man goes beyond the envelope of his skin.:
Actually William Barrett, when explaining Heidegger's notion of Dasein, noted that a child who first learns how to respond to his or her name does not simply think that his or her name is "the name of an existence that takes place within the envelope of his [or her] skin" (Barrett, 219). In other words, a child's name has to do with his or her field of Being. We only are (Heidegger contends) when we are in-the-world.
Barrett adds:
"To be sure, this existence is always mine; it is not an impersonal fact, as the existence of a table is merely to be an individual case of the class table. Nevertheless, the mine-ness of my existence does not consist in the fact that there is an I-substance at the center of my field [of Being], but rather in that this mine-ness permeates the whole field of my Being" (219). To put it simply, Dasein participates in the banality of everydayness conducted by Das man (the they).
:On your last post, why did you use the word praxis instead of the word practice?:
Force of habit.
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
-
Deacon
Brothers and sisters...once more Dunny has bored me, I want to share with you a very deep concern I have about Dunny The Scot. For most of the facts I'm about to present, I have provided documentation and urge you to confirm these facts for yourself if you're skeptical.
While it is not my purpose to incriminate or exculpate or vindicate or castigate, it will not be easy to seek some structure in which the cacophony introduced by his deeds might be systematized, reconciled, and made rational. Nevertheless, we must attempt to do exactly that, for the overriding reason that when one examines the ramifications of letting Dunny convert our children to cultural zombies in a mass of unthinking and easily herded proletarian cattle, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation.
Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. But we mustn't let Dunny prevent the real problems from being solved. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy.
Now that I've been exposed to Dunny's bons mots, I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps the unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, it would be wrong to imply that Dunny is involved in some kind of conspiracy to force us to adopt rigid social roles that compromise our inner code of ethics.
It would be wrong because his stances are far beyond the conspiracy stage. Not only that, but ancient Greek dramatists discerned a peculiar virtue in being tragic. Dunny would do well to realize that they never discerned any virtue in being prodigal.
Lastly, I can't end this without mentioning that Dunny The Scot reads magazines that feature the disrespect, degradation, dehumanization, and exploitation of women and their bodies....the Wt and AWAKE!
-
dunsscot
Chris:
: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”.:
No, that was not the essential gist of my post. I was actually arguing that some ex-JWs seem to display monomaniacal behavior. They seem to be excessively focused on the JW religion in an unhealthy way.
: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.:
In your earlier submission, you used the word "nature" without specifying what you meant. I should have called you on it, but I did not. Could you please define what you mean by "nature"? Otherwise, we are going to be talking past each other here.
: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.:
Any misunderstanding might have resulted from your failure to delineate clearly your position and your definition of nature.
: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?:
I think I explained why I "abandoned" the thread. I was trying to reply to AF by Friday and then hit the road. But I did not complete my responses to him. So I will be around for a few days. Since I am in the process of leaving this forum, why should I get immersed in threads that are going to take a lot of time and energy and prevent me from leaving?
: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?:
I think one problem stems from our starting points. I personally think that one must first formulate a theory, juxtapose it with human experience, and fully understand and then clearly delineate the said theory. This process takes time, especially if one adheres to the principles of phenomenological realism. A phenomenological realist tries to get back to the things themselves when he or she formulates a theoretical system. Thus, my emphasis on theory. AFTER the theory is formulated adequately, then one can begin to talk about praxis. That is how I philosophize.
: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.:
I am actually more interested in metaphysics than with the realm of Becoming. If one spends his or her time contemplating "the things themselves" or those eternal concepts that are immutable and not subject to the vicissitudes of temporality, he or she will live and teach a way of life that will benefit those in the realm of Becoming. So I do not worry about capitalist systems and so forth. That is beyond my philosophical purview.
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
-
dunsscot
One of the primary reasons I brought up the subject of Dasein was to "justify" my use of language on this medium of communicative discourse. William Barrett lucidly explicates Heidegger’s approach to human language when he writes:
"Men exist 'within language' prior to their uttering sounds because they exist within a mutual context of understanding, which in the end is nothing but Being itself."
As I brought out earlier, Heidegger posited Dasein as a field of Being. That is, an area in which we live and breathe and move in-the-world. In the region of Being, language assumes an existential character. It is not composed of sounds, marks, or modal operators. Heidegger thinks that language only occurs because humans exist in a field of Being. As a result of their existence in the region of Being, such existents are primordially attuned to one another. Thus language arises out of the primitive "silence" of Being. For Heidegger, "silence is language; it may speak more eloquently than any words" (Barrett 223).
These points of information bring home the fact that language is rooted in Dasein. Since Dasein (Being) both conceals itself and reveals itself, human language also is alethic (has the character of revealedness) and a-lethic (it has the character of concealedness). Because Duns employs communicative discourse in his field of Being, it is no wonder his speech is both alethic and a-lethic.
Duns the Scot
"Nobody is taller than himself or herself."
-
Commie Chris
Well Duns, I live in the real world, not in a "realm of Becoming" or a "realm of Being". If your starting point is a division of metaphysics into Being and Becoming, I agree we will probably be talking at cross purposes. In my view, yours is a thoroughly dualist philosophy, your references to Heidegger, Sartre and Aristotle notwithstanding, while mine is dialectical. It would probably be impossible to discuss "wholeness", or any truly relevant, practical philosophy on your terms. Furthermore, I'm not interested in purely academic discussions of philosophy, and you would no doubt consider social ecology more of an ideology than a philosophy. I see that distinction as artificial.
I am going to be very busy with work over the next few days, so I won't be able to continue this right now anyway. I will, however, post something in a week or so, probably as a new thread, on the subject of human nature, freedom and ecology. Personally, I don't think there is any need to use labels or jargon such as "social ecology", dualism or dialectics - I have only used them with you - and I probably won't in any new thread. However,if you're still around in a week or so I would be interested in your response, preferably without jargon.
- Chris the Commie