Judd, you wrote: "Please mention ONE PHILOSOPHER in the history of mankind who doesn't thematise humanity against the background of their existing as beings? A child could tell you that every damn human being on the planet can only be related to or ontologically constituted as a topic of discourse if he or she exists or
existed in the past. If they have no being [if they do not exist] then they can't be ANYTHING - they can't be talked about or ignored â?? because there is/was
no 'they' to be addressed. To thematise anything whether it be animal, vegetable or mineral presupposes that they or it exists [or existed at some time
in the past]."
Your comment shows a common and understandable misconception of what Heideggers means, when he writes about the Being of a being (Sein eines Seienden).
Heideggers writing surely doesn't make understanding him easy and I myself am not sure, to what degree he actually wanted to be understandable or cared about being understood by others.
But putting the language and especially the whole case of "Being in itself" aside for a while (surely it somehow replaces the common concept of god, which leaves us with the question though, if this alone already discredits it), I would like to address his concept of "Being of a being", which seems to hold some ground and shouldn't be cast aside so rashly.
If Heideggers writes about the Being of Dasein, or the Being of any kind of being, he doesn't mean their mere existence, but instead the way HOW this kind of being is FOR US. We and the other kinds of beings don't just exist, but we exist in a certain way which comes from the way we perceive and interpret ourselves (Dasein) and other things (Zeug=things-at-hand, Andere=other human beings, Kunstwerke=pieces of art etc.).
Each category of beings is/exists in a way, that is shaped by certain rules and forms of our understanding resp. the way we understand this specific type of thing.
Just like Kant, Heidegger is interested in these rules and forms with the difference, that Heidegger includes more in our understanding, than mere synthetical or analytical thought. He means to include the underlying "pre-cognitive" state of ourselves, which is not ruled by reason but still by trancendental forms, that can be subject to transcendental analysis.
Heidegger continues Kants work of a transcentental analysis of the rules of our understanding process but with a much wider perspective than Kant.
Kant mainly thought of the way we perceive and construct external objects resp. the external world - Heideggers tried to include, if not every aspect, then at least many different aspects of our understanding of and acting in the world.
I agree with you, that Heideggers views are not as revolutionary and new, as purported by many of his followers. I would like to add though, that especially his ideas in "Being and Time", that deal with the transcendental structure of our understanding and the world, are worth taking a close look at.
And lastly let me express my disappointment about the type of language you allow yourself to use. I am new to this list, but I don't think, that I am the only one here or anywhere else to deem such ways of discourse as being counter-productive and over all not acceptable, even if they might be understandable from a psychological point of view.
Apart from this I still think, that it is very much worth while and refreshing to talk to you.
With hope for a fruitful discussion,
Chistian
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
existed in the past. If they have no being [if they do not exist] then they can't be ANYTHING - they can't be talked about or ignored â?? because there is/was
no 'they' to be addressed. To thematise anything whether it be animal, vegetable or mineral presupposes that they or it exists [or existed at some time
in the past]."
Your comment shows a common and understandable misconception of what Heideggers means, when he writes about the Being of a being (Sein eines Seienden).
Heideggers writing surely doesn't make understanding him easy and I myself am not sure, to what degree he actually wanted to be understandable or cared about being understood by others.
But putting the language and especially the whole case of "Being in itself" aside for a while (surely it somehow replaces the common concept of god, which leaves us with the question though, if this alone already discredits it), I would like to address his concept of "Being of a being", which seems to hold some ground and shouldn't be cast aside so rashly.
If Heideggers writes about the Being of Dasein, or the Being of any kind of being, he doesn't mean their mere existence, but instead the way HOW this kind of being is FOR US. We and the other kinds of beings don't just exist, but we exist in a certain way which comes from the way we perceive and interpret ourselves (Dasein) and other things (Zeug=things-at-hand, Andere=other human beings, Kunstwerke=pieces of art etc.).
Each category of beings is/exists in a way, that is shaped by certain rules and forms of our understanding resp. the way we understand this specific type of thing.
Just like Kant, Heidegger is interested in these rules and forms with the difference, that Heidegger includes more in our understanding, than mere synthetical or analytical thought. He means to include the underlying "pre-cognitive" state of ourselves, which is not ruled by reason but still by trancendental forms, that can be subject to transcendental analysis.
Heidegger continues Kants work of a transcentental analysis of the rules of our understanding process but with a much wider perspective than Kant.
Kant mainly thought of the way we perceive and construct external objects resp. the external world - Heideggers tried to include, if not every aspect, then at least many different aspects of our understanding of and acting in the world.
I agree with you, that Heideggers views are not as revolutionary and new, as purported by many of his followers. I would like to add though, that especially his ideas in "Being and Time", that deal with the transcendental structure of our understanding and the world, are worth taking a close look at.
And lastly let me express my disappointment about the type of language you allow yourself to use. I am new to this list, but I don't think, that I am the only one here or anywhere else to deem such ways of discourse as being counter-productive and over all not acceptable, even if they might be understandable from a psychological point of view.
Apart from this I still think, that it is very much worth while and refreshing to talk to you.
With hope for a fruitful discussion,
Chistian
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---