2 ms·

"In his landmark book Being and Time (1927), Heidegger made the bold claim that Western thought from Plato onward had forgotten or ignored the fundamental quest

"In his landmark book Being and Time (1927), Heidegger made the bold claim that Western thought from Plato onward had forgotten or ignored the fundamental question of what it means for something to be -- to be present for us prior to any philosophical or scientific analysis." No. "what it means for something to be" is, for Heidegger, merely "ontic being", which he was not interested in. Instead, Hedigger was interesested in "ontological being", or "the being of Being". Now, what "the being of Being" is, is itself the subject of a multi-hundred page unfinished book of what is widely considered to be some of the most difficult writing in all of philosophy. Because Heidegger's writing is so difficult and so open to interpretation (and re-interpretation), many philosophers disagree strongly about what he actually meant. For example, what "Being" itself is, for Heidegger, is one of the biggest points of contention. The entire field of Christian Existentialism[1] crystalized around interpreting Heidegger's "Being" as God. But many other philosophers don't interpret it theistically at all. His other essays outside of Being and Time are equally difficult to understand and open to interpretation. This includes "The Question Concerning Technology", and I'd caution strongly against taking any one summary or interpretation of it as gospel or the final word on the subject. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_existentialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_existentialism

elefanten 5y ago
So what is the value of such work, which is so open to interpretation that 100 years later you will find diametrically opposed takes on its meaning? Does it not just devolve into a Rubik's Cube for literary nerds? I ask seriously. I was deeply enchanted with critical / Continental philosophy for a decade, but I don't think I came out of it with any unique insights. "Nothing can be proven to be objectively true" is an insight one can find many other places. Conjectures about what the driving forces of society are a dime a dozen, but any useful means of verifying and comparing them seems far out of our reach. So, why all this study of the Heideggers, the Lacans, the Derridas. What does it really contribute to humanity?
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  "why all this study of the Heideggers, the Lacans, the Derridas" I can't speak for anyone else, but my interest in Heidegger dovetails with my interest in Asian and Indian religion and philosophy, and with my interest in the illusory nature of the world and what lies behind the world of appearances. I'm not interested in Lacan or Derrida, so will leave them for others. "What does it really contribute to humanity?" Is having one's eye's opened or seeking ways to open one's eyes useful? Does something have to "contribute to humanity" in order to be of value? What did the Mona Lisa or other great works of art contribute to humanity? Should Beethoven never have written a note of music because none of it is useful? Or does Beethoven's music's use in parades finally justify its creation? Can philosophy, like art and music, somehow connect us or open us up to the core of humanity or the world? Is that useful? Does it have to be?
- atoav 5y ago
  My take on it is as follows: Most of the thoughts we have day in and day out, even when tackling hard, existential or universal topics are constrained by the abstract aystems they are thought in. Think how language affects the way a person thinks. Of course you can also think mathematically, geometrically, in terms of pictures, colors, computer programes, small mechanical contraptions and so on. What philosophers like Heidegger tried to do (the reason for the often hard to read language) is to go to places, think thoughts and create systems of reflection that are hard to express with language alone. On top of that there have been certain philosophical movements who thought that thinking itself is more valuable than froming any coherent theory of the world into which all is forced to fit. So in short: they tried to expand on thinking all while jumping through various hoops and trying to avoid various pitfalls.
- pnexk 5y ago
  >So what is the value of such work, which is so open to interpretation that 100 years later you will find diametrically opposed takes on its meaning? Different takes to make sense of complex phenomena happen in many fields. It's not a co-incidence that it is especially as such in the realm of our culture where challenging existing interpretations is common place. >Conjectures about what the driving forces of society are a dime a dozen, but any useful means of verifying and comparing them seems far out of our reach. Indeed it is difficult, but I would highly suggest not being too empirically minded about abstract concepts like these. What conceptual frameworks and methods are useful in one field (e.g. quantification and measurements in the sciences) do not carry over to another necessarily. Human societal structures and phenomena are complex and would be more difficult to make sense of were it not for useful works like these. >So, why all this study of the Heideggers, the Lacans, the Derridas. What does it really contribute to humanity? One answer is tradition given these are thinkers part of significant and established schools of thought, and another is that there simply are contemporary scholars that find value in furthering and fleshing out the (usually dense) systems of thought and frameworks. Modern psychology for example has come about from philosophical and psychoanalysis frameworks, some of which are still explored and furthered alongside empirical investigations. I might be mistaken, but it feels as if your post fails to wrap itself around the idea that not all human knowledge need not be something that contributes to practical or immediate assistance to humans or their productivity. And that instead, sometimes, it can be simply related towards the pursuit and sake of knowledge itself.
hmsshagatsea 5y ago
>Because Heidegger's writing is so difficult and so open to interpretation (and re-interpretation), many philosophers disagree strongly about what he actually meant. There’s a bit of a joke out there about Heidegger’s difficulty. “Heidegger is impossible to translate - especially into German”
6AA4FD 5y ago
It intuitively seems to me like "what it means for x" is not clearly one or the other, ontic or ontological. At a kind of indirect approach, the ambiguity whether we are actually investigating something ontically or ontologically is kind of a problem for the ontic approach... are we picking out Natural Kinds, or are they just the categories with the greatest utility and/or intelligibility to us? Anyways, MH says 'so if we should reserve that term "ontology" for that theoretical inquiry which is explicitly devoted to the meaning of entities' (page 12 of the German edition). Wouldn't the meaning of being, as one of those theoretical entities, be an ontological question? Ontic being, on the other hand, would be ontic man, or the subject of the sciences? It could also be presence in the Derridean sense, but that is not really meaningful in the ontic register, since negation necessitates a Being... I am not really a Heidegger guy so I would love some insight here.

elefanten 5y ago

So what is the value of such work, which is so open to interpretation that 100 years later you will find diametrically opposed takes on its meaning? Does it not just devolve into a Rubik's Cube for literary nerds? I ask seriously. I was deeply enchanted with critical / Continental philosophy for a decade, but I don't think I came out of it with any unique insights. "Nothing can be proven to be objectively true" is an insight one can find many other places. Conjectures about what the driving forces of society are a dime a dozen, but any useful means of verifying and comparing them seems far out of our reach. So, why all this study of the Heideggers, the Lacans, the Derridas. What does it really contribute to humanity?

pmoriarty 5y ago
"why all this study of the Heideggers, the Lacans, the Derridas" I can't speak for anyone else, but my interest in Heidegger dovetails with my interest in Asian and Indian religion and philosophy, and with my interest in the illusory nature of the world and what lies behind the world of appearances. I'm not interested in Lacan or Derrida, so will leave them for others. "What does it really contribute to humanity?" Is having one's eye's opened or seeking ways to open one's eyes useful? Does something have to "contribute to humanity" in order to be of value? What did the Mona Lisa or other great works of art contribute to humanity? Should Beethoven never have written a note of music because none of it is useful? Or does Beethoven's music's use in parades finally justify its creation? Can philosophy, like art and music, somehow connect us or open us up to the core of humanity or the world? Is that useful? Does it have to be?
atoav 5y ago
My take on it is as follows: Most of the thoughts we have day in and day out, even when tackling hard, existential or universal topics are constrained by the abstract aystems they are thought in. Think how language affects the way a person thinks. Of course you can also think mathematically, geometrically, in terms of pictures, colors, computer programes, small mechanical contraptions and so on. What philosophers like Heidegger tried to do (the reason for the often hard to read language) is to go to places, think thoughts and create systems of reflection that are hard to express with language alone. On top of that there have been certain philosophical movements who thought that thinking itself is more valuable than froming any coherent theory of the world into which all is forced to fit. So in short: they tried to expand on thinking all while jumping through various hoops and trying to avoid various pitfalls.
pnexk 5y ago
>So what is the value of such work, which is so open to interpretation that 100 years later you will find diametrically opposed takes on its meaning? Different takes to make sense of complex phenomena happen in many fields. It's not a co-incidence that it is especially as such in the realm of our culture where challenging existing interpretations is common place. >Conjectures about what the driving forces of society are a dime a dozen, but any useful means of verifying and comparing them seems far out of our reach. Indeed it is difficult, but I would highly suggest not being too empirically minded about abstract concepts like these. What conceptual frameworks and methods are useful in one field (e.g. quantification and measurements in the sciences) do not carry over to another necessarily. Human societal structures and phenomena are complex and would be more difficult to make sense of were it not for useful works like these. >So, why all this study of the Heideggers, the Lacans, the Derridas. What does it really contribute to humanity? One answer is tradition given these are thinkers part of significant and established schools of thought, and another is that there simply are contemporary scholars that find value in furthering and fleshing out the (usually dense) systems of thought and frameworks. Modern psychology for example has come about from philosophical and psychoanalysis frameworks, some of which are still explored and furthered alongside empirical investigations. I might be mistaken, but it feels as if your post fails to wrap itself around the idea that not all human knowledge need not be something that contributes to practical or immediate assistance to humans or their productivity. And that instead, sometimes, it can be simply related towards the pursuit and sake of knowledge itself.

hmsshagatsea 5y ago

>Because Heidegger's writing is so difficult and so open to interpretation (and re-interpretation), many philosophers disagree strongly about what he actually meant. There’s a bit of a joke out there about Heidegger’s difficulty. “Heidegger is impossible to translate - especially into German”

6AA4FD 5y ago

It intuitively seems to me like "what it means for x" is not clearly one or the other, ontic or ontological. At a kind of indirect approach, the ambiguity whether we are actually investigating something ontically or ontologically is kind of a problem for the ontic approach... are we picking out Natural Kinds, or are they just the categories with the greatest utility and/or intelligibility to us? Anyways, MH says 'so if we should reserve that term "ontology" for that theoretical inquiry which is explicitly devoted to the meaning of entities' (page 12 of the German edition). Wouldn't the meaning of being, as one of those theoretical entities, be an ontological question? Ontic being, on the other hand, would be ontic man, or the subject of the sciences? It could also be presence in the Derridean sense, but that is not really meaningful in the ontic register, since negation necessitates a Being... I am not really a Heidegger guy so I would love some insight here.