/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3513897]

Is care the meaning of being and is the meaning of care the self-temporalizing of temporality?

[Anonymous No.3513903]

>In English, doc! We ain't no philosophers!

[Anonymous No.3513909]

No and no.

[Anonymous No.3513911]

meaning of being is temporality, meaning of temporality is care.

[Anonymous No.3513917]

>>3513911
temporality is the fundamental upon which care is "based" - it's the other way around - the meaning of care is temporality

[Anonymous No.3513918]

>>3513909
WRONG

[Anonymous No.3513927]

>>3513917
nope

Div. I starts with "huh Being?" and ends with "hurr maybe time"
Div. II starts with "huh Time" and ends with "hurr maybe care"

[Anonymous No.3513944]

>>3513927
No that's wrong.
Part 1 begins: Meaning of being? And ends "Maybe care".
Part 2 begins: What is the meaning of care? Maybe temporality.
Just finished this shit, Believe me.

[Anonymous No.3513956]

>>3513944
ah fuck ya you're right

[Anonymous No.3513967]

How could care mean temporality. Like a philosopher would know about care.

[Anonymous No.3514006]

>>3513967
Care is founded on temporality. The structure of living and existing within a world requires the past,present,future - in order to realize a plan one needs to be able to do so within temporality.

[Anonymous No.3514016]

>>3514006
Just a quick note, you do mean the structure of living and existing for only a Being and Dasein, correct?

[Anonymous No.3514032]

>>3514016
yes that's right - the "living and existing" which recognizes its "living and existing" as an issue

[Anonymous No.3514772]

So when, in other works, Heidegger talks about things like art and technology as revealing the meaning of Being (or something similar, reminding me of Hegel) does that mean that Being as temporality shows a purpose because of our discoveries (and inventions if you like) or is it just revealing our care?

Or maybe I just made a transcendental salad out of the whole thing due to my biases.

[Anonymous No.3515193]

bamp

[Anonymous No.3515240]

>>3514772
Well I've only read Being and Time, but what I'd imagine is that, because temporality is the meaning of care, the modern modes of art and technology *are* the modern modes of being. It's not that they reveal a purpose beyond themselves, but rather that by being the dominant mode, these structures we invest with care become the historical shape of our current Being-in-the-world. So basically to say that the range of our Being-in-the-world, being fallen in to the world (in to, for example, the communication offered by the internet - existing through the possibility it offers as well as through its limitations), is always within history - the spirit is historical. Something like Hegel, as you say...

[Anonymous No.3515247]

could you define 'care' and 'being' and 'temporality' and 'meaning' first?

[Anonymous No.3515288]

>>3515247
I'll try - but these are terms Heidegger spent his life defining so...I'll do my best.

Care is one's involvement with the world - the way one simultaneously shapes and is shaped by the world. As I type, I'm simultaneously creating meaningful linguistic patterns and letting those linguistic patterns create "me" in a historical sense. In addition I'm physically manipulating the keyboard and the rote muscle memory I'm learning is physically manipulating my fingers; the reciprocity goes all the way down. That's what the term Being-in-the-world means - Being and the World are simultaneous - neither is apparent without the other.

Being is something broad, which basically means something like the totality of existence. Heidegger's most basic question is "What is the meaning of being?" and by this he's asking in what sense can we finally say what being is at all. The difficulty of the question is that, because a "thing" can only be defined by its contextual relationship with other things, the "thing-ness" of being can only be defined in relation to something that isn't existence - and what is not existence has never been made accessible. Heidegger's response to this difficulty is the "hermeneutic" of being, the circling around the problem by inspecting the "grounds" by which being can be a problem at all: Dasein. For him, inspecting the being for which being becomes a problem is a necessarily oblique method of access to the question of being.

Temporality is the fundamental ground of care. Care, involvement with the world, requires that, for example, there be a future in which to enact an involvement with the world, a past to recognize the possible modes of involvement with the world, a present to experience involvement with the world... this part can be very subtle - Heidegger describes temporality as simultaneously unified and multiple; the past, present, and future, are always part of the same structure, but, depending on one's mode of being, they are - -

[Anonymous No.3515305]

>>3515288
also differentiable at the same time. Basically the upshot of the fundamental grounding of care in temporality is that one's being-in-the-world will always be carried out historically: through whatever the current modes of care might be.

Meaning isn't really explicitly a "Heideggerian" term, but when he asks about meaning, he's trying to define the actual depth of a term in as total a way as can be realized. So the meaning of care isn't just one's conscious thought process about whatever happens to be the object of care presently. It's also the unconscious way an object can be taken up and applied while being used as a kind of extension of the body, the way one doesn't really need to consciously understand a hammer in order to swing it and hammer in a nail. Much of Heidegger's thought is an attempt to "let speak" these un-spoken, non-verbal processes which nonetheless are fundamental to the way care is involved in the world.

[Anonymous No.3515309]

>>3515305
For a summary somewhat less crude:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/