And …?
Heidegger’s existence philosophy teaches that the nothing(ness) becomes obvious or evident by the fear („Angst“) in which always lies a move back from something which is in reality the nothing(ness). The essence of the nothing(ness) is the nihilation, namely the repellent or resisting reference to the sinking entity in the entirety, meaning to the nothingness of all entity.
Martin Heidegger wrote:
„Worum sich die Angst ängstet, ist das In-der-Welt-sein selbst.“ (Martin Heidegger, Sein und Zeit, 1927, S. 187).
Martin Heidegger wrote:
„In der hellen Nacht des Nichts der Angst entsteht erst die ursprüngliche Offenbarkeit des Seienden als eines solchen: daß es Seiendes ist - und nicht Nichts. Einzig weil das Nichts im Grunde des Daseins offenbar ist, kann die volle Befremdlichkeit des Seienden über uns kommen und die Grundfrage der Metaphysik: Warum ist überhaupt Seiendes und nicht vielmehr Nichts?“ (Martin Heidegger, Was ist Metaphysik?, 1929).
The fear („Angst“) isolates the existence („Dasein“) and opens it in this way as possible being („Möglich-Sein“), as free being („Frei-Sein“) for the freedom („Freiheit“) of the self chosing („Sich-selbst-wählen“) and self seizing („Sich-selbst-Ergreifen“).
The being in the world („In-der-Welt-Sein“) is the transcendental basic constitution („Grundverfassung“) of the existence („Dasein“). The concept of the „In-der-Welt-Sein“ deactivates the consciousness concept and the of subject/object dualism.
But see, you have imprudently discerned them as underlying discernibility. Sein und Zeit is a given-up attempt of doing that without doing it.
Value ontology is the abnegation of the will to do it, and the resolution to do the sensible thing instead.
Have a model wherein this distinction does not exist, but into which the distinction can be fluidly resolved, without the elements losing their functional attributes – their juxtaposing cognitive hooks which allow for grammar to take place.
Heidegger identifies, here and usually without saying it (which is unwise and simply poetic), the mind, and not being.
Dasein is “Man in his mind” - Bauen, Wohnen, Denken.
The hole in the donut of being, basically - the fact that the mind has to contemplate in contrasts and thus as soon as it contemplates “Being” as some sort of whole, or “thing”, it evokes the idea of Non-being, also as a “thing”.
The absurdity of identifying being as an object, is the same stupidity of speaking of “the universe” – “being as a whole” is in fact negated by the actually referred meaning of the term being; i.e. phenomena, experience, the scientifically measured world; open ended conceptions.
This would be an interesting subject for a book. The interest would be to revaluate fear, to come to see it as the requirement of courage/freedom/choice/identity - and in a mans fear is his character reflected. Ethos anthropos daimon…
Heidegger’s problem was that he was a charlatan. I never really read him, but based on everything I read, it appears to me to be the case (I can’t read every single fucking imbecile in his entirety just so that I can be able to pass my judgment, you see.) I mean, what kind of idiot do you have to be to pose questions such as “why is there something rather than nothing”? For anyone with an IQ above that of a monkey the imbecility of such a question should become apparent within seconds for there is no such a thing as “nothing” (i.e. nothing is just another something.) With that in mind, the question is revealed to be of the form “why is there X and not Y” which is just another form of “how did X happen?” But what is X in this case? If what is meant is “how did EVERYTHING happen?” (and I am sure that’s EXACTLY what is meant) the question becomes meaningless because in order for such a question to make sense this X must not be everything because in order for such a question to be answerable there must be some other Y that can be said to be the cause of X.
I feel very ashamed to have to post this because it requires from e to assume that pretty much everyone on this topic is a fucking imbecile and part of me is resisting this because I find it extremely hard to believe. It is DEPRESSING to see so many posts seriously addressing such a tripe.
The standard which Heidegger sets is one of general intellect. He who does not grasp H is almost by definition cognitively incapable of recognizing the philosophical challenges of this time.
Ork hork bork, right o maggneuhr, eeee kjuuu eeeek juuuu magggnoes.
Anyway, the problem of Heidegger is the problem of man as a species rather than as an individual. The problem is that mankind is not primarily biologically but linguistically detetmined – the dna of the species is human grammar.
Unfortunately this codex overrules the healths and diseases of dna and places weak men in charge. Brutes may clamor for power but as long as force does not penetrate language, it is toothless.
Capricorn.
Many would do well to avoid someone who spouts non-sense such as:
Seriously motherfucker? What sort of chemical imbalance one has to suffer from in order to be able to assign such a noble little word that is practice a negative connotation? Practice = reality; everything that is not practice = fiction/laziness/solipsism/armchair philosophy. One would do well to stop right here and skip the goddamn motherfucker. No need for any further inspection, that’s how terrible this statement is.
. . . for even when we merely think, we’re dealing with practice, SIMULATED practice, which is based on our previous experience of practice. The two are in cyclical relationship, you theorize then you act, and when your actions invalidate your theories then you go back to theorizing again and when you’re done fixing your theory you go back to acting again AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
On one hand, you have the modern idiots who despise theory; on the other hand, you have the philosophical solipsists who despise practice.
Or are you going to tell me that I’m misinterpreting the motherfucker? That he’s merely using language in a stupid way? and that his stupid of language is in no way betraying his stupid innate inclinations? and that I should simply CLOSE MY EYES to his pathetic use of language and put up with the bullshit so that in the end I can understand the precise kind of chemical imbalance he suffered from?
And then, there’s your own stupidity, further diminishing my desire to pick him up . . .
Which has absolutely nothing to do with Nietzsche and absolutely everything to do with hedonism i.e. Nietzsche would never reduce anything to joy.
We already know you have read none of the Germans.
You should really try to learn how to defend your stupid stances, you know, instead of simply posting boring pointless one-liners which serve nothing but to show us that you do not know how to defend your stupid stances and that you are in need of being told that you should really try to learn how to fucking defend your stupid fucking stances for christsake just deal with my points instead of shitting one-liners.
OH I DIDN’T READ THE “GERMANS” THE “GERMANS” AS FIXED HALLUCINATES THEM. I DIDN’T READ NIETZSCHE SAYING THAT PLEASURE JUSTIFIES PAIN FOR CHRISTSAKE.
And if he DID say that so what, moron? Who cares if Nietzsche made a mistake?
Another way to interpret the question is like “why live and not die” which is a bit more concrete but you still have to wonder what kind of person do you have to be to ask such a question, or rather, what kind of person do you have to be to be BOTHERED by such a question. It is pretty obvious to me that living is better than dying and I need no reasons whatsoever to defend my stance though I have to admit it would be fun to do so (to figure out the reasons, because it would strengthen my position.)
If it were the other way around, if living was easy and dying was difficult, I am pretty sure they would be asking themselves something like “why die and not live” because the reason they pose such questions is in order to conceal from themselves the fact that they find their task difficult. First, they find it difficult to stick to a goal, then, they find it difficult to admit to themselves that sticking to their goal is difficult. So they end up being motivated to invert the values by posing a question such as “why goal X and not its opposite goal Y?” So if living was easier they would be all like “why dying and not living” and if dying was easier they would be all like “why living and not dying”. Either way, whatever was easier they would be all over it. The funny thing is that they wouldn’t be able to commit suicide either, because committing suicide requires a bit of a will power which they lack, so instead of going for a quick death they’d go for a slow death endured with the help of delusions of all sorts.
People don’t do things because they give them joy or whatever, they do them because they can do them i.e. they are strong enough to do them. Simple.
To say that life/existence has to be justified is to say that you don’t like your life.
To say that pain has to be justified (by joy or whatever) is to say that pain is a bad thing.
To say that Nietzsche said these things is to say that Nietzsche contradicted himself (and that he was talking rubbish.)
So yeah. Have a good day and a Happy New Year.
You misunderstand me Gnus. It’s good that you haven’t read any of the German philosophers. Even a newspaper is too ‘intullektsjuol’ for a “duder” like yourself.
Jakob
But isn’t this in a sense true? Our human experience[s] can sometimes be flawed, misrepresented, misinterpreted, because of our “subjective” perceptions. I may not be understanding the above statement but IS it possible that we can find a totally rational and logical purpose ALSO not based on our experiences? In other words, the brain’s "fanciful" reality vs. what is actually known and seen. If that made sense.
Or is “human experience” here meant as also encompassing all present rational and original thought (at least original to the person him/her self, not just personal history, emotions, spiritual intuitions, et cetera.
I may be wrong here but couldn’t that also be seen as a form of, albeit, a mild one, narcissism or hedonism?
Does nature’s cause always lead to delight? It’s cause can be seen as struggling to become but is there necessarily delight in this unless one is speaking of “delight” as a much more subdued form of “being” - or having found “it”…whatever "it’s is.
Or perhaps better still - delight through self-perpetuating.
I don’t know Heidegger but did he actually have a problem or does the problem lie within us because we can’t understand him or don’t agree with him? That’s often the case you know.
Magnus Anderson,
There is another way to look at this question which would not be so concrete, MA – To someone in crisis, whose life might be so chaotic almost beyond the power to endure it in the moment would have a valid reason to ask this question and again, it might not be so concrete. There might be so much flowing in and out of yes’es and no’s, so much emotional fluctuation, so much struggle to endure, so much questioning of the purpose for living, but at the same time the strongest desire to simply let go.
.
Either a person who sees no meaning or essence left to life or one who sees so much or has seen so much. I mean, that is a really profound question in a person’s life - at least in the life of a conscious human being, one who also might reflect that question in a sane normal moment.
Questions of life and death are at the center of a person’s life…they are the core of one’s existence…certainly that of a philosopher and/or one seeking the truth and a new perspective.
But that’s not true of everyone, Magnus. What of the man or woman who has just lost his/her only child? How worth living do you think life is to that person in the moment? Or the person who has been so struggling with cancer that part of them would rather just let go in that moment but something keeps them from doing that.
What about the soldier oversees fighting a war who has seen so much death and destruction who is just about ready to give up because his/her mind has been stretched to the limit? It does happen you know.
When life is going well for us, sure it’s pretty obvious at that time that living is better than dying but we can’t assume that that is the truth for everyone simply because it is the way we feel. In this case, generalizing shows nothing.
There are cases where dying is preferrable to living. We don’t always hold that life is so precious and has so much meaning unless we see life with rose-colored glasses (which I have in the past while at the same time glimmering reality) which isn’t seeing life in all of its reality - the wonderful and the tragic. People havie breaking points and our lives are so changeable. Who was it who said “Life changes on a dime”!
Or it might weaken your position. 
Maybe or maybe not.
Did I, moron? I think that’s what every moron thinks when you call him a moron.
Your example is weak, but we can ignore that, since there ARE situations when death is preferable to life. This, however, is to conflate absolute valuations with relative valuations.
I explained this to that Aeon/Wizard fuckwit a while ago over at KTS, so maybe I could copy-paste that text here. But it’s irrelevant, isn’t it? It should be pretty obvious that life is superior to death.
And the reason for this is simply because you say so.
By the way, your one-liners are formulaic and bot-like and most importantly, completely pointless. What do you achieve when you spout non-sense of that sort? It is impossible for me to imagine that writing such formulaic crap can possibly be so engrossing. Either way, you should really put some effort in defending your beloved philosophers and ideas instead of simply repeating cliches that are so ineffective it’s not even funny.
There is life down to the quantum level.
It’s not about life.
It’s more like : “why awake? why not asleep?”
Life and death are, as concepts, the love of separatism.
Justification and choice come after fate and cause. Not before.