Yeah I just never could get Heidegger’s motivation, all I’m perceiving is desperation and pretentiousness. If the Being/Dasein just means what it’s like to be human, what it means to be human, then why the big words.
Never-mind, then…go on.
Grammar it is…spelling, words, referring to words, translating words, referring to words…referring to nothing but abstractions in minds.
Inter-subjectivity…collective solipsism.
Where charlatans flourish…will to power over simpletons.
First was the word…Alpha & Omega, and the last word goes to the Last Man.
Ta, Ta,
Because he was literally writing in German 
you know how some of those words are, and then how they translate into English.
The longest word in German, incidentally, has 63 letters. Yep.
And I cannot really see how one can read Heidegger and detect any pretentiousness. He is very open, unassuming even, at least that is how I see him through his words:
"3· The Ontological Priority of the Question of Being
When we pointed out the characteristics o f the question of Being,
taking as our clue the formal structure of the question as such, we made it clear that this question is a peculiar one, in that a series of fundamental
considerations is required for working it out, not to mention for solving
it. But its distinctive features will come fully to light only when we have
delimited it adequately with regard to its function, its aim, and its
motives.
Hitherto our arguments for showing that the question must be restated
have been motivated in part by its venerable origin but chiefly by the lack
of a definite answer and even by the absence of any satisfactory formula
tion of the question itself. One may, however, ask what purpose this ques
tion is supposed to serve. Does it simply remain-or is it at all-a mere
matter for soaring speculation about the most general of generalities, or
is it rather, of all questions, both the most basic and the most concrete?
Being is always the Being of an entity. The totality of entities can, in
accordance with its various domains, become a field for laying bare
and delimiting certain definite areas of subject-matter. These areas, on
their part (for instance, history, Nature, space, life, Dasein, language,
and the like), can serve _ as objects which corresponding scientific
investigations may take as their respective themes. Scientific research
accomplishes, roughly and naively, the demarcation and initial fixing of
the areas of subject-matter. The basic structures of any such area have
already been worked out after a fashion in our pre-scientific ways of
experiencing and interpreting that domain of Being in which the area of
subject-matter is itself confined. The ‘basic concepts’ which thus arise
remain our proximal clues for disclosing this area concretely for the first
time. And although research may always lean towards this positive
approach, its real progress comes not so much from collecting results and
storing them away in ‘manuals’ as from inquiring into the ways in which
each particular area is basically constituted [Grundverfassungen]-an
inquiry to which we have been driven mostly by reacting against just
such an increase in information."
You probably won’t find someone who is less interested in grammar, words, than me, since I’m a nondualist which is beyond language, but okay. 
Much of modern “philosophy” has become an exploration of human psychology and how human brains have evolved to deal with a fluctuating cosmos that is mostly incomprehensible.
It has become introspective. Feminine. Political.
Existence is never engaged directly but always through the mediation of sanctioned proxies…speaking about speaking about speaking…
Text referring to texts, referring to abstractions with no references in anything experienced…because that would put a stop to the linguistic creativity of the participants, competing over who can produce the most mystical, inspiring, manipulative sequence of words.
Like modern fART…splash some paint on a canvas, and then let the observer project his insecurities into the mess, claiming that it was intentional…that something profound was being represented in the colorful randomness of the paint drops.
The problem is taking nouns literally… methodically avoiding verbs.
The problem is language…and what it is.
An art form…
How can a sculpture represent movement, using a solid, seemingly static medium, without midwit becoming convinced that existence is static and movement is an illusion?
The problem is how words are used…how they are defined.
Using other words…or actions?
My metaphysics exist alongside physics…not is some Platonic realm - which is the human skull, where ideals exist as vague abstractions.
My metaphysics refer to chaos, where ‘thing’s’ cannot be found because they lack patterns to be used to construct them.
Chaos and Order existing simultaneously…interactive, dynamic…
Neither being groundless, in some before or after, or projected into an imaginary location ‘outside causality.’
Yes but I was rather wondering about Heidegger’s Being and Beings, which if I understand correctly, are more general. All “entities”, including lifeless objects, are Beings. A rock participates in Being, some kind of conditions for the rock to appear as an entity. To me a rock just is. The rock’s Being is umm disclosed through Dasein?
All unities, such as rocks, drops, things, are mental constructs - abstractions. Abstractions reduce dynamic existence to a level they can process - they convert them into neural energies transmitting them to the brain where they are processed into feelings, images, unities…ideas.
The brain cuts away the background so as to construct a unity - a bottle, a stone, a particle…a speck, a mountain, a planet…
All is energy…dynamic, interactive, fluctuating…
Yes yes there is always change and the mind manufactures ‘things’, unities as you call it. But I’m mainly talking about the rock in the external world here. To me the rock “out there” just is, and we perceive it differently, assign different meanings to it etc. I’m not sure why Heidegger has to be so convoluted about this, if he’s even talking about the same.
Maybe he wanted to conceal something. Maybe he wanted to be misunderstood.
That’s a psychological issue that can be explored.
The issue here is…what are words and how can they be anchored to reality, preventing charlatans from using them to exploit naive dolts?
There are a few on this very forum.
Wananbe’s who covet the impact some individuals had and want to emulate it.
Individuals like Nietzsche and Crawly…not Heidegger…which identifies them.
They covet their influence…their power.
Will to Power…if lies achieve the goal, then lies are their truths. This is why they want to maintain words as they are - disconnected from reality…malleable…ambiguous, mysterious…used to exploit the masses.
Heidegger’s National Socialism repulses them.
Words are philosophy’s tools. They expose the user’s motives…like an artist is exposed by how he uses the chisel to carve marble.
And that is the most interesting thing, about language, and how modern philosophy has been corrupted. It has become political - see Strauss.
American pragmatism - truth is what works, and if lies work, then lies are truths - Orwellian, no?
How can we cleanse language from over two-thousand years of corruptions?
How do we return them to their original utility - as mediators between the noumenon and the phenomenon?
How do we return them to the earth, their grounding, and work form there?
No, rocks do not have Dasein. The existence of a rock is not questionable to itself.
Yes but rocks “have” Being, which is disclosed through Dasein.
1 Like
I don’t know about that, you’d have to ask someone more familiar with Heidegger than I am. In any case this is not a Heidegger thread, maybe we can pivot back to the topic.
Do rocks have value?
If there were no life in existence, would stones, or water, or gold, have value?
My position is that life bestows value, because life needs…and wills…has objectives. It is relative to life’s objectives that everything in existence can be given value, relative to a goal. I value rocks when I wish to build a stone house…If stones are rare, then I value them highly, for their durability and rarity.
We value individuals relative to our needs and desires…our ideals, our objectives. It is I who evaluates, judges, in accordance with my understanding and objectives…understanding of myself and my objectives and, the effort required to achieve them.
But charlatans use ‘value’ in a metaphysical sense…as if everything has intrinsic value…trying to pretend that they are saying something profound when they are saying nothing at all.
If I define value as force, energy, then I still require an objective, and an evaluator to use a standard, with which value is established…approximated.
Another example of how charlatans and cowards use words to escape reality, or to imply what they cannot justify, is in how they define -free-will.
Conveniently choosing a supernatural, metaphysical definition that contradicts experience existence, in order to dismiss it as illusory…then they do not apply this same method to other concepts like -strong-will…or life. This is the quality of their intellectual integrity.
Let’s apply their cowardly method to the concept of ‘life.’
If I CHOOSE to define life as immortal, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect… then I can claim life, as I experience it in myself and in others, is illusory.
If I CHOOSE to do the same to the concept of ‘strength,’ and define strength as omnipotence, then I can claim strength of will, or all forms of strength are illusory, because they fail to adhere to my Platonic Ideal. They are but a shadow of my Platonic Strength…or freedom… or life…
This is how cowards and charlatans manipulate words…because telling a desperate man that freedom is an illusion helps him cope with his dependence, his slavery… or, more importantly, with the consequences of his bad judgements and choices.
And this is how philosophy, and metaphysics has become a crutch…where charlatans and cowards locate everything they wish to discredit and disregard or use as a tool for exploiting human weaknesses.
But what, intelligent Satyr, is a verb? I contend that a verb either is a noun or implies a noun, like in Latin and (ancient) Greek.
video eum ire
“I see him go.”
The construction eum ire/“him go” is called an accusative and infinitive. But in my view, it’s really an accusative and accusative—a combination of these two pictures:
“I see him.”
“I see go[ing].”
(For historical reasons, English has to use the gerund here, as if it said video eum eundum.)
I see the combination of him, who of course cannot be doing nothing, and going, which of course cannot happen without an agent according to our grammar and the—perhaps irrefutable—human errors underlying it…
But what does that mean… That’s what’s Heidegger’s asking. Do you think you know what objective being means, just as Satyr thinks he knows what objective time or becoming means?
Yes: it’s normal because it’s necessary, but why is it necessary? Apparently, it’s necessary for consciousness… That’s why it’s what (Western) philosophy does (simply or not).
It isn’t itself a being—or, more accurately, an entity—because it’s precisely your continuous world… It’s neither divided into entities nor itself an entity part of a greater (non-)division.
The question why Heidegger came up with something like that can be the question that gets one into his question.
I think you got your nomenclature wrong. The Kantian school is precisely what Heidegger’s teacher Husserl rose up against:
“When I was still almost a boy, Husserl explained to me who at the time was a doubting and dubious adherent of the Marburg school of neo-Kantianism, the characteristic of his own work in about these terms: ‘The Marburg school begins with the roof, while I begin with the foundation.’ This meant that for the school of Marburg the sole task of the fundamental part of philosophy was the theory of scientific experience, the analysis of scientific thought. Husserl however had realized more profoundly than anybody else that the scientific understanding of the world, far from being the perfection of our natural understanding, is derivative from the latter in such a way as to make us oblivious of the very foundations of the scientific understanding: all philosophic understanding must start from our common understanding of the world, from our understanding of the world as sensibly perceived prior to all theorizing. Heidegger went much further than Husserl in the same direction: the primary theme is not the object of perception but the full thing as experienced as part of the individual human context, the individual world to which it belongs.” (Leo Strauss, Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, page 31.)
“[E]very natural science accepts nature in the sense in which nature is intended by natural science, as given, as ‘being in itself.’ The same is of course true of psychology which is based on the science of physical nature. Hence naturalism is completely blind to the riddles inherent in the ‘givenness’ of nature. It is constitutionally incapable of a critique of experience as such. The scientific positing or taking for granted of nature is preceded by and based upon the prescientific one, and the latter is as much in need of radical clarification as the first. Hence an adequate theory of knowledge cannot be based on the naive acceptance of nature in any sense of nature. The adequate theory of knowledge must be based on scientific knowledge of the consciousness as such, for which nature and being are correlates or intended objects that constitute themselves in and through consciousness alone, in pure ‘immanence’; ‘nature’ or ‘being’ must be made ‘completely intelligible.’ Such a radical clarification can be the task only of a phenomenology of the consciousness in contradistinction to the naturalistic science of psychic phenomena. Only phenomenology can supply that fundamental clarification of the consciousness and its acts the lack of which makes so-called exact psychology radically unscientific, for the latter constantly makes use of concepts which stem from every-day experience without having examined them as to their adequacy.” (op.cit., page 35.)
Objectively it doesn’t mean anything, unless shown otherwise, hence the question makes no sense to me.
You could ask what it means to me right now, and it either means something to me right now or it doesn’t (right now it doesn’t), and that could be subject to change over time.
It’s necessary for being functioning humans in everyday life. But not necessary for consciousness fundamentally. My consciousness stopped doing it too, I just simulate it.
These are two different issues imo. Even if the world is continuous, the Being has to exist somewhere, it can’t both exist and not exist at the same time. Unless we’re really just talking about the meaning that I personally assign or don’t assign to things, in which case why make this so convoluted?
This is a different issue.
Of course it means something to you “right now”. If it didn’t, you couldn’t mark this “right now” as the moment the being of the rock “out there” declaredly doesn’t mean anything to you.
But yeah, “out there” in quotes. The question is indeed what it means to “you”, or to dasein. The rock is your go-to (simple) example of a lifeless object, for one.
What, you merely simulate dividing your world into entities, you don’t “actually” divide it into entities anymore? Whatever does that mean?
It can be somewhere yet not be somewhere, if you see what I mean. I mean, where does somewhere exist? Does it also exist somewhere? And does this latter somewhere, in turn, also exist somewhere?
Is it? Isn’t it—a continuum of issues?
I see this thread has failed. I take no blame, I put the blame on the absurdity of the participants and on this website.
Any last words for the OP? Epitaphs also welcome.
1 Like