/lit/ - Literature

>>4203124
It beings.

What 'is' is?

>>4203124
>>4203134


what?

>>4203124
Care

Depends on which form of "being" you're operating on. Do you mean being in the sense of being the case, or being in the sense of merely being an entity? This is a distinction Heidegger fails to make, and it hurts his project.

>>4203139
he does make the distinction, and it is the being of being.

Requesting guide how into Heidi

>>4203139

>>4203142
read Sein und Zeit

>>4203141

That's just the sort of thing Heidegger would say. The "being of being". What a joke. He was a sophist who said something meaningful purely by accident.

>>4203142
>>4203147

It would help if you've read Kant or Aristotle, but his intro into BandT is pretty good at introducing whats about to happen.

>>4203149
Dont get all hotty just because you got called out for saying something that was blatantly wrong, something so blatantly wrong it is a wonder if you even read Being and Time at all.

>>4203154

Why would I read that trash?

>>4203149
shut the fuck up

"our aim in the following treatise is to work out the question of the sense of being and to do so concretely."

he is talking about what does "being" mean, not why we *are* or what *is*. This isn't the complicated part.

He claimed that philosophy generally overlooked this question, saying it was too far out of reach or that it was redundant.

>>4203150
I'm reasonably familiar with those. Should I just try to hop in like >>4203147?

>>4203162
get one with annotations at least

>>4203164
I'll have a look around and get started on the Stanford article in the meanwhile.

>>4203160

I agree that it is much, much easier to answer the meaning of being in the sense of being the case, but the fact is that he doesn't mention the distinction between the two types of being. You can indeed INFER which "is" he's tackling - I never denied that - but I still think it hurts him not to even acknowledge such a distinction.

>>4203169
he does though...

>>4203160
Dont worry anon, he hasnt read the book. Anyone who read the intro would know what you are saying. See?
>>4203157

>>4203162
Thats what I did and at the time I wasnt that familiar with Aristotle. My best advice is to push through Heidegger even if you arent completely set on whats going on with the philosophy. Heidegger has this annoying way of revealing information. Not all the time, but a good amount of the time he will begin discussing something new without declaring it, and then at the end he declares what this is, or to put it another way, he puts his thesis at the end. Youll hit a lot of moments where you wont understand something for a couple pages, and then hell just blatantly tell you, this is this, and youll go "FUCKING OF COURSE", only later though will you realize that he simply waited to give you the thesis at the end rather than the beginning. This isnt that big of a deal however, since after this reveal hell continually use the language and youll start picking up how to use the language simply by watching him.

He doesnt do this for big ideas, but youll see what I mean. Good luck

>>4203175

To be fair a lot of philosophers do this sort of end-thesis thing. Kant is another major offender.

>>4203169
Shut, up.

He does this right in the intro

>>4203181

No.

be·ing
[bee-ing]
noun
1.
the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).
2.
conscious, mortal existence; life: Our being is as an instantaneous flash of light in the midst of eternal night.
3.
substance or nature: of such a being as to arouse fear.
4.
something that exists: inanimate beings.
5.
a living thing: strange, exotic beings that live in the depths of the sea.


:3

>>4203193
the point is asking what does "existence" denote.

what is the being of Being

>>4203175
10x bruv

>>4203130
This is the best answer so far, as far as Heidegger's thought goes.

The essence of being is found in an experience of Ereignis, the "es" of the German "es gibt."

The wizard of Being.

What is the being of meaning?

Being.

'Very Simple, OP. In having a mood, Dasein [being there] is always disclosed moodwise as that entity to which it has been delivered over to the Being which, in existing, it has to be. 'To be disclosed' does not mean 'to be known as this sort of thing'. And even in the most indifferent and inoffensive everydayness the Being of Dasein can burst forth as a naked 'that it is and has to be'. The pure 'that it is' shows itself, but the 'whence' and the 'whither' remain in darkness. The fact that it is just as everyday a matter for Dasein not to 'give in' to such moods--in other words, not to follow up their disclosure and allow itself to be brought before that which is disclosed--is no evidence against the phenomenological facts of the case, in which the Being of the 'there' is disclosed moodwise in its 'that-it-is'; it is rather evidence for it...

Heidegger is what happens when a clumsy German "thinker" reads somebody with wit and style (in his case, Kierkegaard).

Kierkegaard's main point was that the Germans were retarded for fetishizing abstract thinking, and that they should have to always refer their thinking to a concrete way of being/living, just as Socrates and many of the Greek schools after him did. The entire subtext of Kierkegaard's writing is "stop reading this and go and become a responsible human being".

Heidegger read this subtext (that you have to BE and cease endless reflection) and to show that he had understood this point . . . he did it through endless reflection, romanticized and fetishized abstract thought. I have no doubt that Kierkegaard would have picked up on this irony.
Kierkegaard is the antidote to the madness of German philosophy since Hegel (which spread into France in the 20th century).

>>4203227
>you will never be a national socialist philosophical mastermind who lives a rustic life innawoods with his family and a jewish mistress downtown on the side

>>4203175
Personally, I'd also recommend starting with History of the Concept of Time, the first half of which is Heidegger on Husserl, and the second half of which is the first half of Being and Time, but much more readable.

In general, I'd say that Marty's 1920s lecture series are a good place to start. Also, if you read Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, or The Basic Problems of Phenomenology, you get a lot of stuff that probably would have made it into the parts of Being and Time that never got published.

>>4203124
>Being
Why the fuck do you Anglophones capitalize this word?

>>4204273
Uh... the only reason he capitalized it is because Heidegger capitalizes it.... Sein not just sein

No one capitalizes it usually

>>4204379
>How do we spell German nouns?

>>4204379
I thought it was because it makes it easier to show the difference between Being and beings (or entities), which I think translates to Sein and Seiendes or something like that. Don't most German nouns get capitalized?

>>4204390
Then there should be a problem as we can distinguish between being and a/multiple being/s. At least prospectively and provisionally.

>>4204400
*should not

the tao that can be spoken of is not the tao itself

be like water, young grasshopper

>>4204400
>there should be a problem
This is what non-quietists actually believe.

It's just a bourgeois concept used for the oppression of the proletariat, everything will be solved after the Revolution.

it's not about meaning, it's about feeling.

>>4204538
Could you be anymore of a weeaboo faggot?

>>4204784
Challenge accepted.

>>4204688
quietism is an untennable position

>>4203233
Dasein

>>4204719


reality oppresses the proletariat.

Anyone care to explain this to-and-fro movement people like H. keep on banging on about?

>>4206545
yeah at the moment

>>4205032
You cant know that because the quietists would never tell you they are quietists

>>4204719
muh college marxism

>>4206986
Yeah, because the quietists don't know that they are quietist.
My aunt is a quietist, poor thing has no clue what's up with her.

>>4206990
I'm jealous of your aunt.

I'm not the guy you are writing with, by the way.
I think you are right insofar as quietism is not an option you can actively choose, because if you do so, you are not a quietist at all. That being said, the best we, and Wittgenstein, can do is have fun with our language games while keeping in mind that it "doesnt matter" whether we talk at all or not: "Truth" is not affected. We just talk or do not talk. That's all: And if that's all, we could just remain silent.

>>4206929
What do you mean?

>>4207028
Language as neithr inside, nor outside, but as a back and forth between Dasein and the world.

>>4207033
Haven't read his later works on language, so I can't help you, but one thing I observed in my reading of Being and Time is that he really likes taking two terms and bringing in a third one that is basically the inseparability of those two. You can't have that-which-is-interrogated without that-which-is-to-be-found-out-by-asking, which is why he's also got that-which-is-asked-about.

Note that I'm not a very good Heideggerian, so I might be totally wrong here. But rightly or wrongly, I noticed this structure all over the place. It could have something to do with that hermeneutic circle, perhaps?

>>4207033
If I may have a quick guess: In his mission of overcoming the subject-object-disctincion, it might be necessary to put it that way.

>>4207040
You are referring to the Gefragt|Befragte(anfragen)|Erfragte structure? Yes, that has everything to do with the hermeutical cycle.

>>4207043
Yes, I understand why he does it. What I have trouble with is understanding what it means. To put it differently, I can see the formal structure, but I have trouble figuring out what formal content that structure makes accesible.

>>4207076
>To put it differently, I can see the formal structure, but I have trouble figuring out what formal content that structure makes accesible.
As far as I can tell, he's trying to get away from the sorta-Kantian tradition of making strict divisions between everything. So he needs a structure that allows analysis without strict division.

>>4207196
But what does that structure of analysis allow him to say?

>>4205032
>implying that it requires tenning

>>4207076
>>4207203


The structure IS what he is saying, that is the whole point. What is within the metaxy of the structure is Being.

It is kind of like drawing what is versus drawing the outline of what could be. You can only describe something as varied as being by tracing the points which contain it.

>>4207380
Really? That's all?

>>4207470

Try and do it.. It is a hermeneutic masterpiece.

Meticulously connecting all the different poles( As meticulously as can be imperfectly done, here we see his work with Aquinas) of Being, and connecting them on the transcendental level on a single subjective/ Individual point...isn't an easy task. In more relatable terms, what you just did was look at Hegel's' Dialectic and shrug. The only appropriate response, even if you don't like it, is to be impressed.

>>4207499
>Hegel's dialectic
But that can't be true, as Marty casts aside dialectics.

>>4209381
way to miss le point shrugnuts

>>4203124
Not Unbeing

>>4209446
Enlighten me, oh initiate of the mysteries.

>>4209483
He merely used Hegel's Dialectic as an example of something that's impressive even if you in no way hold it as true or plausible. The construction of the theory itself demands respect.

>>4203124
geworfen entwurf

I still have no idea what Heidegger is talking about.

At least when a philosopher or psychoanalyst says "subject" I can understand that it refers (unless it is metaphysically stated otherwise) to the way we are constituted to think as an "I", even if we as individuals are in fact just the sum of various processes acting together in some way.

But why Dasein, what does being-here denote other than a feeling? Is it so relevant that it is an openness?

Also, what is this thread even about? I always get the feeling Heidegger is full of shit, despite his important phenomenological observations, because he states stuff like "let us talk about the meaning of being" and then the answer just turns into, to vulgarize a bit, "muh feelings give me insight into metaphysical truth".
Why even talk about "the being of Being"? I can understand, I suppose (even though, as far as I can tell any analytic philosopher would get a sadistic hardon at bashing this) I can understand what the "being of beings" is, but why isn't "being of Being" an empty phrase? And does "meaning of Being" even mean? Is it in the sense of that leibnizian (I think it comes from Leibniz at least, I'm not sure) "Why is there something rather than nothing?" or "Where is Being headed?" or "what do we mean when we say the word Being?" or all of these (or none) ?

I understand Heidegger is continuing the transcendental/speculative tradition, but I've even read philosophers that obscurely refer to "Heidegger's failure" and I can't help but think that he failed in giving answers to the most important questions he was pursuing.

On a side note, Sloterdijk has a book called Zorn und Zeit that basically, on a Nietzchean tone, says "not only Care tells us about Being, but rather Anger (as a result of self-affirmation, similar to Nietzsche's Will to Power as far as I can understand it, considering Sloterdijk's admiration for Nietzsche) does so as well".

>>4209667
>why do philosophy?

>>4210171
What?

>>4203124
Projective disclosure by the fore-structure of understanding that grounds the hermeneutic as.

>>4209667
>But why Dasein, what does being-here denote other than a feeling?

The idea of the subject as you present your underestanding is a regular "Individual" with room for different explanatory factors such as social and psychological.

That is not Dasein. Dasein is a cluster of "ways of being" that are directed at the world. More precisely, Dasein is the only Being that can inquiry into Being itself.
That might not mean so much, that humans are the only reflective beings, but on top of this there is the phenomenological core of Heideggers philosophy, that Dasein itself is the "constructor" of the world, or more precisely; that we can't talk about meaning without talking about the Dasein that experiences this meaning. To a certain degree, a good way to read Heidy is to substitute the word "Being" with "Meaning" - at least it eases some of the confusion, and it's not far off.
But, the idea of thinking about the subject as an I is the whole problem. What you need to think about, is that everything that you will ever experience is you, Dasein. You are not a free flowing entity in a world of other entities, but an active part in making the world you move around in being that precise world you move around in. THE active part, infact.

The question of being then ends up by being; how and why does the Dasein contruct the world in this (and 6 billion other) ways?

So to understand the question of being you have to go through Dasein. And yes, "feeling" is an important part of the philosophy in a sense, because questioning your own being is the very way to enter into the question of what is, because it is the only being that you have any real access to.

Hermeneutics and so on and so forth.

>>4210489
Thank you, that was very helpful, although I do not see how Heidegger could answer the question he spent so much time preparing. Is "Care" the only answer or is that not even an answer?

>>4210933
Care in scarequotes is an objectified what, his answer is much more a how as care.

>>4210489
I understand that you're explaining this in non-Heideggerean language, but you sure are subjectifying the existential analysis.

>>4210933
No, Care is only a "mode" of Being, although a particular mode, only (obviously I guess) possible for Dasein. Care is more of a practical interaction with the world, that could be described as our desires and goals and the actions we take on the way there.
I think the most specific answer that he gives to what Being really is, is that it is the nothingness that you experience in a serious case of existential Angst. It is the moment when you realize that all there is, is NOW, and "through" you. In a sense, it is a negative answer.
If you are really interested you should read "What is Metaphysics". (and possibly the Tao Te Ching). That is where he gives his most accesible account of what he thinks the sense of Being is.
But I think you have to be open to the "mystical" side of Heidegger, because otherwise you wont get much from him. His "psychology" (Concepts like Care, In-order-to etc.) is reasonable, but his Metaphysics (Foundational Ontology as he would put it) is really a question of whether it resonates with you or not.

>>4210971
Care to elaborate? Because this is one of my main problems with the man, that "knowledge" and authenticity is such individual-minded ideas. I know that the the Man (? haven't read it in english) is a social term, but how far does it extend? Is it much more than the possibility of (something akind to) intersubjectivity?

>>4211000
Well I'm familiar with "What is Metaphysics?" and that's what I was mostly referring to when I said the "my feelings give me access to metaphysical truth". I mean, Nothingness revealing itself in authentic boredom, angst and so on seems insufficient for what he is trying to do.

>>4211000
Also, the "through" you part should be read with Care (sic) cause it is only the meaning (that is; the World) and not Being itself that is through you

>>4211031
I'm not sure what you are asking. However, his views on authenticity and the individuation of access to being do not make for a kind of subjectivity or relativity with regards the truth that pertains to the phenomenon of being. Being itself is the most universal (and as such the, at first, most empty), the individuality comes in when we ask "how do I have access to being?'' To which there is only one answer: through the being that is ontically closest, but (unfortunately) ontologically the most distant, i.e. Dasein. But subjective access =\= a wende zum subject

>>4211050
Yeah, I agree, and I guess I see your initial point. Could have stressed the difference between World and Being, and Ontic / Ontological.

I thought maybe you knew of some secret level where das Man and the authentic self met up and had intersubjective Worldbuilding parties, that I had overlooked.

>>4211102
"Worldbuilding" should be scarequoted I think, sounds too much like construction, consesus, and convention. Heidegger's not a con-man, he's more of a sammeln-man

>>4210489
>But, the idea of thinking about the subject as an I is the whole problem. What you need to think about, is that everything that you will ever experience is you, Dasein.
Do you even alterity?

(No, seriously, Levinas's critique of Heidegger now makes a lot more sense to me.)

>>4211179
>Levinas' critique of Heidegger
That's: Dasein never eats. RIght?