"The Turning" By Heidegger

[Bretty123]

Has anyone read this essay, what did you think of it in terms of its content and wording? Personally I see a few things in it worth noting but overall it was pretty bad and confusing. Alot of his sentences make no sense at all.

Thoughts?

-Brett

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

What do you mean 'a lot'?

I'd say 100%.

[Bretty123]

Well I mean to say his stuff can sometimes make sense although it is really hard to understand given his horrible and often constipated writing style. . Like he makes a statement about technology and in plain english I can say to myself "Okay i understand his position on technology in general as far as its worth or value" or something along those lines. But then the rest seems like completely horrible metaphysical thought exercises. Like he keeps using the term "being" but I have no idea what he means when he says something like "Nevertheless, because being, as the essence of technology, has adapted itself into enframing, and because man's coming to presence belongs to the coming to presence of being - inasmuch as being's coming to presence needs the coming to presence of man, in order to remain kept safe as being in keeping with its own coming to presence in the midst of whatever is, and thus as being to endure as present..."

honestly, I love to keep an open mind about philosophy in general as you may know from previous posts. But like please someone explain to me what this actually MEANS? I'm able to understand pretty much any philosophy you put in front of me even if it has nothing to do with any sensical empirical reality, but this is some serious language maze.

Rosa, Wittgenstein is looking awfully appealing right now.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I honestly do not know why anyone bothers with that charlatan Heidegger; I suggest that unless you have to (to pass acourse at college, or whatever) you do not waste your time with that jargon-meister. He's even worse than Hegel. At least Hegel was not a charlatan.

He no more means anything by the term 'Being'* than did Parmenides. who invented the term (by nonimalising a perfectly good verb) -- a trick that Plato and subsequent philosophers perfected.

[*No more than Lewis Carroll meant anything by the word 'brillig' in the Jabberwocky:

http://www.waxdog.com/jabberwocky/poem.html]

[hoopla]

Hello Bretty.

What do you make of "there" in Heidegger. I thought it might be important, but I don't know how on earth to do philosophy tbh. The cambridge companion does not index it.

Cheers

:mellow:

[Bretty123]

Do you mean Dasein? as in Being-There?

[hoopla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 04:06 AM
Do you mean Dasein? as in Being-There?
The there that dasein brings along with it, without which it is not an entity.

I think Merleau-Ponty is ace, btw.

[Bretty123]

I havent read Merleau-Ponty but what do you think Dasein means?

[hoopla]

Being-there, is the literal translation, isn't it?

Apparently (and I didn't explicitly grasp this at the time) Dasein is not a thing, but a happening (is all being a happening?). A life story. I don't think thats its a subject.

So that there makes Dasein an entity, and facticity is way of being of Dasein that it always is when Dasein is. Can there be a non-factical Dasein? Is there primordial to facticity?

World has a there as well, being-in. The Dasein of others is also there.

What questions do you have after reading being and time?

The being-there-too, the sameness of being as being-in-the-world H118, is that a mode of the being (or what?) of Dasein that is mine, or the other's?

:lol:

[Bretty123]

I do agree that Dasein is not a subject it is more of a sphere that one can enter into. It sounds like it is consciousness?

Why do you think that Dasein is an entity? Just because it is not a subject doesn't mean it is itself an entity.

I havent read all of being and time, so your probably ahead of me on that literature. The problem with people like Heidegger is they don't really just flat out say what they mean by Dasein. I mean, if it is a life story or a happening, why does he not just say this and explain it? If you read some of his other works he does the same thing in all of them.

[hoopla]

Because he explicitly says that "there" makes Dasein an entity. I did think that it might be consciousness for a while, but I'd have to get through some Husserl, to be sure what consciousness is.


The problem with people like Heidegger is they don't really just flat out say what they mean by Dasein. I mean, if it is a life story or a happening, why does he not just say this and explain it? If you read some of his other works he does the same thing in all of themPhilosophers :rolleyes:

Maybe he doesn't explicitly say because he wants you to follow his method.

Dunno how to do the Heidegger's heremeutical reuction, or whatever it is.

I thought it might be, that feeling you get when you want to grasp a pen on the table (when there is no other thought in your mind) - conjured up in the presence of all sorts of other objects :blink: . I tried this method anyway (just as a guess), but I'm not sure what it taught me about being.

[hoopla]

Yeah, like, imo his analysis of time, is very good in the phenomenology of perception.