Dasein & world-for-me (cogito, mutual production)

Could we put Heidegger’s thoughts in the form of a cogito, like this: “I am becoming, therefore I have a world for me”?

If you don’t like how I used the word “becoming” (or anything else) then insert your preference, and feel free to express your concerns with my misrepresenting Heidegger or anything else. I’m sure we’ll all learn something.

Does this work forwards and backwards? Does “becoming” and “world for me” stand and fall together in a mutually productive/destructive way? I am becoming, therefore [AND] I have a world for me [AND VICE VERSA].

  1. “I am becoming, therefore I have a world for me.” If the mind can exist without a body/world, it can “become” without a body/world. If I am not sure my thoughts are real, can I be sure I am becoming? It must first be shown the mind cannot exist without a body/world, or that the “world for me” is not necessarily physical, and first that I can trust my thoughts are real.

  2. “I have a world for me, therefore I am becoming.” Are we sure this world is “for me”? Am I just talking to myself and inventing a “we”? Also see #1.

  3. You cannot have “becoming” without “world for me”. I agree, but see 1 and 2. Our bodies could be like cb radios for our minds so that we don’t need them to exist. If by world you mean something like a cb radio, then it is also not true that to be a human requires a world. What was the world for before it was for humans?

  4. You cannot have “world for me” without “becoming”. Hm. What if the world I inhabit is timeless and I am unchanging - would that result in contradiction? If the world is older than humans, how does it exist before we do (important to know, if we require it for our existence… if it even exists)?

And, yes, I do this with other phenomenologists.

Do you disagree there is a “mutual production/destruction” (see Chuang Tzu) going on here?

If we grant it… Who is the subject (essence) that grounds object (existence) from the beginning (eternally exists essence)? Who is the ground of being? Descartes said the only word for such a being is God.

That said, do you think the phenomenologists following Descartes and coming up with their own versions of the cogito did a better job than Descartes (with his resulting ontological argument, and his version of the philosophico-scientific method built from it–and to which we ought to return!) at grounding how we can trust what comes to us through our bodies (like cb radios or not)? (How do they go from “you can’t have mind without the body/world/etc” to “you can trust what comes to your mind through your body”? Here’s the thing. THEY DON’T. Descartes appears to be the only one who ever did. It’s a bait and switch. It seems like they produced more questions than they resolved, unless they meant it to be a riddle for all of us to solve.

Do you think I misunderstand what the post-Cartesian phenomenologists were trying to do relative to him?

No there is no misunderstanding.

The idea of a cogito as perceived back in the day suggests an eternal ground, timeless in the sense of that era, and may not have suggested the changes which a truly timeless relative , that the tools of conflict may have caused to mankind in a post modern world.
This tools, may have revealed the dark side of releasing the awful side of an energy, that the tools themselves may have stolen from civilized man, and attaining such power, may could simulate man’s incurable appatite for the application of savage cruelty upon those out of line with that element of control.

An unimagined future, a time that could no longer be measured , would reign in a new timelessness. Without the markets to attain the ability to see the cogito as based in an ideal form of appraising anythjng,not less the effect that such barbarism would measure on nothing but the changeless animal behavior that all but forgotten the intended objective underlying God’s Word

But still …there is more to a picture then an expected silver lining that can not be iver come the failure of the wird’s meaning to encompass:

Even if we try to compensate fir the loss of that memory, the originally finely constructed imitation of the mother’s live that instinct’s compression has painted on the ceiling frescoes of the Cisgine chaoel: which the demonization of Man has shown; man’s live for his sone can not be shirt cuffed without that intention to re-view that power , fir whose ground no imitation can suffice, for the word represents the guaranty fir that affection build up from the ages, that phoenix raised to guarantee , the indelible transcendence that by that power if the absolute will can overcome the failure of man to encompass that moving star that unites his lost memory, borne through the ages, not aNY part of it list, so that Word can be reassambled at any time without a hard copy, by the newly discovered body attuned to that stored message if man’s body made perfectly to resemble the shaoe and meaning of that massage : that love reins suoreme, and by the will of that stored energy, it’s message can be regained, as it can so easily be list in appearances of a self willed void

The only way to find the exit to the futility of liss, is t I re-visit the unfailing belief in the need if recovery.

Addicted to live, even in a personal godhead, into whose trust we can deliver our selves.

As a matter of policy, I do not respond to gibberish. Speak English or forever go unheard (by me).

Just for the record, if ether one of you are interested, here is my own take on dasein [small d] "& world-for-me ":

Now all we need is a context.

Assuming there is ONE

That’s one down.

It’s all on you now, Ichthus. :sunglasses:

and to half the wit, of those who are able to squeze into the middle - then the score may turn out differenly, probably. a tossup, between opinions and hard facts.

And then, the criteria of 'self victimization/ contradiction may take on a fallacious aspect.
(all on the sane page)

You know what’s phun to think about? How come stuff that cancels out entangles?

Hole whole, or hole whole?

A-hole? Or b-hole?

Deep. Deep pile of crap.

Well, that is why opposites attract and vica -versa; the sane with fallacies through logical certainty, and not reversely do entanglements certainly attract each other.

Maybe the effect is paradoxically effusive, scrappy & strange.

Wave the flag and perished the thought.

The Hungarian and Austrian flags are identical in format ( 3 parallel lines: but differ reversely
in coloring.

Hungarian: red white and green
Austrian. : green white and red

Winder in his colored books Wittgenstein thought of koehler with any allusion in mind.

meno and me no are a very wide stretch from paradoxical

Methinks I learned more teaching in autism for five years than I would studying W, but am def interested.

Doesent ‘cancel out’ only one attracts buzzards instead of fireflies. Really,

He/she says:

"Could we put Heidegger’s thoughts in the form of a cogito, like this: “I am becoming, therefore I have a world for me”?

me no answers:

"Of course one can, for heidegger uses ‘dasein’ in an ambiguous way which later he explains, …

Becoming is heraclutian while identity hopes for a certainty, without ambigouity.

Hoping is close to a hypothetical intention in due time. Back projections are apodiximate with the degree confirming to some intended hypothetical that has some dancing on bones, albeit the horsing around trot

The flag of Austria is the flag of the nation of Austria. It consists of three bands of color in the following order: red, white, and red. The Austrian flag is considered one of the oldest national symbols still in use by a modern country, with its first recorded use in 1230. Wikipedia

Use: Civil ensign, Civil flag
Adopted on: 1230
Proportion: 2:3
Country: Austria

I prefer blue.

Perhaps but I don’t know what “becoming” and “world for me” stand for. I didn’t read Heidegger, so that might be why. Can you help?

I think it’s a good habit not to assume that people on a philosophy board are familiar with every or any known or unknown philosopher.

Read a book. :wink:

In the form of a “I think” is an interesting concept, however. Good to be familiar with words too.

…now if only I can think of a coffee and it appears…


If you told me “Read the book”, I would have taken that to mean “Read Heidegger’s Beind and Time and you’ll discover what these terms mean”. But since you’re telling me “Read a book”, I have no choice but to interpret it as “You don’t know what these words means because you never read a book in your life”. By extension, you’re telling me that these terms, “becoming” and “world for me”, are commonplace terms. I am not convinced in that (:

Is this thread specifically for those who read Heidegger and whose main interest lies in interpreting what he said?

Thank you for admitting that you were pretending to be ignorant. Now educate me and answer the damn question on the original post.