What is Metaphysics and quotes on what it is?

@PappasNick,

pappasnick;

While you were writing this you may have or you may have not noticed that is was "you" who wrote it. Digital thought didn't write it, your brain didn't write it, your hands didn't even write it. Who wrote it? That's what you should be focusing on and not all of the representations.

Dasein

@Dasein,

Dasein;137200 wrote:

Reconstructo;

While you are championing the cause that "being is concept, a thing. no matter how you spell it." aren't you be-ing at the same time?

You do have to "be" in order to be able to "wave the flag", right? So, there is you, be-ing, "waving the flag", right? Then there is this "concept" called "being" that you are espousing, right?

So, while you're espousing "being is concept" you are be-ing, right? You espousing is you be-ing. If you are be-ing and while be-ing you are espousing then you can't be what you're espousing? You can only be the one doing the espousing, right? What you're espousing is only a position, a representation you have made of your be-ing.

Be-ing transcends all of the representations. Who you are is bigger than all the causes you champion. You are not a "concept, a thing. no matter how you spell it." You are not a representation. You are the one "waving the flag".

Just about all philosophy is about comparing representations. It's not about Be-ing. Don't confuse the two.

Dasein

I think you are completely misunderstanding me. I infer that which is behind being. (I agree w/ Hegel & Wittgenstein on this...) IMO, man only thinks in concepts. What is all this "waving the flag" stuff? Not cool. "Be-ing" is still just a concept. It just is, as all of our words are, no matter how they attempt to point away from themselves....

Perhaps I have offended you. I hope not. I am just being sincere w/ you Dasein. I don't think Being is anything but a being after all, even under erasure, etc.

@Dasein,

Dasein;137030 wrote:

You are already spinning out of control when you attempt to turn Be-ing into a "thing" called "being". Some "thing" that can be "proved" or disputed! You are not a thing called a human being. You are Be-ing. The problem with "getting that" is that if you "got it", you wouldn't have any "thing" to prove or dispute! You would have to fill your time with some other activity..

I think I understand this, please correct me if I am wrong.

If a carpenter is engaged in hammering, the hammer is not 'an object' as far as the carpenter is concerned. It is a part of the act of hammering. You would only notice the hammer if it broke, or maybe if you hit your thumb with it.

This idea of 'being-in-the-world' is telling us that the reality of our situation is analagous to this. So when you pause to think about it, you are not really engaged with the situation as it is in reality. Instead you have taken various parts of it out and are looking at them seperately, but in so doing, you are no longer considering them as they really are.

Is that close?

@Alan McDougall,

It's the cornerstone of my current attitude that human existence is the clash of the digital and the continuous. It's all pretty well manifest in Zeno's paradoxes. Must of life is smooth motion, but to think is to digitize. Some philosophy made indeed be anti-thinking. Just as Dostoevsky presents consciousness as a disease in Notes From Underground, albeit ironically.

Dasein, I'm sure you know Heidegger better than I do. I'm coming from a different angel, all and all, though I do have some exposure to Heidegger. I'm interested in the basic structure of human thinking. Our most abstract concepts are close to this concern. I do know what you mean, I think, but we are at cross-purposes in our interests I think.

@Alan McDougall,

jeeprs;

I think you would notice your thumb more than the hammer - LOL.

This is actually very good. Yes the hammer is not 'an object' as far as the carpenter is concerned. More importantly, the carpenter is not 'an object' as far as the carpenter is concerned either. You said, "you have taken various parts of it out and are looking at them seperately, but in so doing, you are no longer considering them as they really are."

More accurately you might have said you have taken you out of it, but in so doing, you are no longer considering you as you really are.

I thank you, sincerely thank you. This is the conversation I have been looking to have. Less representation (illusion) more be-ing. I think we might be as close as we're gonna get without "hitting our thumb". LOL

You have shown me that it is possible to have this conversation with another and not be "misunderstood". Too many times I am told that I "misunderstand" someone while attempting this conversation. I say that is they who don't understand what you and I just uncovered and that I (& you) understand that completely.

Dasein

@Alan McDougall,

Well, thanks.

I also should point out, I was assisted in this matter by the video interview with Hubert Dreyfuss, which helped me to get a better understanding of Heidegger's attitude, (and also from where I got the 'hammer analogy').

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;

You can't offend me, I can only get offended. Nanner nanner nanner - LOL

When you look "behind be-ing" you will find more "be-ing". Please see my response to jeeprs.

Dasein

---------- Post added 03-07-2010 at 05:31 PM ----------

jeeprs;

As soon as you said "hammering" I knew where it came from and I am aware of Hubert Dreyfus. In my opinion Dreyfus spends too much time "objectifying" what you and are talking about by removing himself from the conversation and in so doing, he is no longer considering himself as he really is.

Dasein

@Alan McDougall,

These grammar games are an eyesore. At least some of yall are having fun.

I, myself, am always aware that I means here, insofar as I am here.

;P

@Dasein,

Dasein;137337 wrote:

jeeprs;

As soon as you said "hammering" I knew where it came from and I am aware of Hubert Dreyfus. In my opinion Dreyfus spends too much time "objectifying" what you and I are talking about by removing himself from the conversation and in so doing, he is no longer considering himself as he really is.

Dasein

Dammit! shoulda quit while I was ahead :perplexed:

@jeeprs,

Hi Reconstructo

Just wanted to say I'm right with you on the discrete/continuous idea. Do you know Tobias Danzig, Einstein's favourite mathematician? He writes about this. The sleight of hand of the Dedekind cut, the calculus etc etc. Zeno was right all along, imho, but the case is made more completely by Nagarjuna a few centuries later.

@Dasein,

Dasein;137200 wrote:

Reconstructo;

While you are championing the cause that "being is concept, a thing. no matter how you spell it." aren't you be-ing at the same time?

You do have to "be" in order to be able to "wave the flag", right? So, there is you, be-ing, "waving the flag", right? Then there is this "concept" called "being" that you are espousing, right?

So, while you're espousing "being is concept" you are be-ing, right? You espousing is you be-ing. If you are be-ing and while be-ing you are espousing then you can't be what you're espousing? You can only be the one doing the espousing, right? What you're espousing is only a position, a representation you have made of your be-ing.

Be-ing transcends all of the representations. Who you are is bigger than all the causes you champion. You are not a "concept, a thing. no matter how you spell it." You are not a representation. You are the one "waving the flag".

Just about all philosophy is about comparing representations. It's not about Be-ing. Don't confuse the two.

Dasein

Hi Dasein,

Glad to see you back in the frey!

I think the confusion that you are pointing to is easily resolved by adopting Ortega's terminology which corresponds to the later Heidegger's concept of "be-ing". Ortega would use the term "My Life" or simply "Living" to indicate that prior to thinking we are living.

Ortega expanded this principle to the phenomena of perception, to the extent that he considered that during the act of "seeing a horse," for example, there is a "look-ing" on the part of the person, which is her way of "be-ing" and "horse-ing" on the part of the horse, which is the way of "be-ing" of the horse when we are "look-ing" at it. Both of these would be forms of "be-ing" in Heidegger's sense, if I understand him correctly.

To further eliminate confusion, Ortega uses the term "essence" to refer to the abstracted, conceptual meaning of the word "being." This idea would be later reformulated by the existentialists as "Existence precedes essence." But "existing" has the same problem as the word "being" so we would have to distinguish between "existing" and "exist-ing."

The word existence has the further problem in that its root is the Latin ex(s)istere meaning to "stand out, be perceptible". This would be true of the horse when we are "look-ing" at it. But Ortega would also add that when the horse is "exist-ing" for us, we are "ex-isting" for the horse.

To go back to the point that I think you are trying to make, Dasein, we could say that "liv-ing" or "exist-ing" is what we are "be-ing" prior to "think-ing" about "being".

Another way of "putt-ing" this is Ortega's statement, "Living is a gerund."

longknowledge

:flowers:

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;137052 wrote:

Aristotle, I believe, said that God spent His time thinking about thinking. And Flew entitled his book on critical thinking, "Thinking About Thinking". Unless you believe that accurate and logical thinking is something for which none of us needs improvement, why would believe that. From what I can tell, posters need more thinking about thinking rather than less.

Descartes did much the same

"If I doubt that I am doubting then I am doubting that I am doubting and if I am doubting that I am doubting, then I am thinking and if I am thinking I AM

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;

When you speak in concepts and representations of who you are you have removed you from the conversation, and in so doing, you have removed yourself from life and you are no longer considering you as you really are.

You have removed you from life and the concepts and representations are not accurate and therefore not relevant.

Dasein

@Dasein,

Dasein;137849 wrote:

longknowledge;

When you speak in concepts and representations of who you are you have removed you from the conversation, and in so doing, you have removed yourself from life and you are no longer considering you as you really are.

You have removed you from life and the concepts and representations are not accurate and therefore not relevant.

Dasein,

When I speak of "liv-ing," how is that removing myself from "life"? How is it any different than your speaking of "be-ing"?

And what are the accurate and relevant concepts and representations?

longknowledge

:flowers:

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;

I'm not able to answer your questions. You read what I wrote and turned it around and inside-out. You're on your own, you can think it through, or not. But I'm not going to put in any time into walking down the never-ending road of trying to explain it to you.

And, no, I'm not back to join in the fray.

Dasein

@Dasein,

Dasein;138021 wrote:

longknowledge;

I'm not able to answer your questions. You read what I wrote and turned it around and inside-out. You're on your own, you can think it through, or not. But I'm not going to put in any time into walking down the never-ending road of trying to explain it to you.

And, no, I'm not back to join in the fray.

Dasein

Dasein,

We're all "on our own" all the time. But it get's lonely and boring being "on our own" all the time. That's why I come to the Forum. Why do you come to it?

How do you expect others to respond to your posts? "Yes, you're right"?

And what do you want to "put your time into"? If not "to join in the fray," why are you involved in a "forum" at all?

longknowledge

:flowers:

@PappasNick,

Dasein;137849 wrote:

longknowledge;

When you speak in concepts and representations of who you are you have removed you from the conversation, and in so doing, you have removed yourself from life and you are no longer considering you as you really are.

You have removed you from life and the concepts and representations are not accurate and therefore not relevant.

Dasein

The concepts and representations afford us an ability to measure certain aspects of our being-in-the-world, and can represent totally (though at the same time overshoot it) our being-in-the-world if taken as parameters of our being-in-the-world. So I can speak of concepts and representations of my actions and take each name that is used as a parameter.

If I consider every name to be the most general that it can be, so that it refers to a space of possible objects or relationships rather than the myopic conception of a name as referring to something far too specific to be reasonable (the context in which a name is presented of course limits the space of possibility of meaning) then I can speak of a space of relationships in which my actual past, present and future relation to the world is outlined.

So in speaking about a representation of myself I speak to the relational status I have in the world but in doing so I do not speak of myself directly but indirectly.

So I can speak of representations of my be-ing, but I do not fully convey my be-ing in so doing. I can speak of all representations of be-ing that could be used in an attempt to convey my be-ing, but I do not specify my be-ing directly in any one of them?

So I am in the world, and I can convey a range of possibilities about my be-ing in the world and narrow the possibilities down so as to convey the most accurate possible picture of my relationship with the world, but I still do not touch my be-ing in the world?

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;138159 wrote:

Dasein,

We're all "on our own" all the time. But it get's lonely and boring being "on our own" all the time. That's why I come to the Forum. Why do you come to it?

How do you expect others to respond to your posts? "Yes, you're right"?

And what do you want to "put your time into"? If not "to join in the fray," why are you involved in a "forum" at all?

longknowledge

:flowers:

longknowledge;

I come to the forum to find out if anybody is "showing up" in their dialog or if they are "just phoning it in". Most people do nothing more than "hit the ball back over the net" and apply their "own" spin to it. They think that taking up a position and "defending their territory" is thinking and communication. "jeeprs" (on the previous page of this thread) has demonstrated the closest thing to thinking since I entered the "fray". I just call 'em as I see 'em.

I am never lonely and it is never boring around me. Being lonely and being bored are the symptoms of a person who is not "present" in their life and are just going through the motions. Being lonely is an "internal dialog of self-pity" and I suggest to you that having that "dialog" for any length of time is not in your best interest. Bringing that dialog to a "Philosopy Forum" is not appropriate. You need to find a way to make a contribution. Only you know what that is. You do that and you will never be bored or lonely.

Boredom is a sign that somone is not "present". You know many people who aren't "present" in their life, (you've seen a lot of them just "going through the motions in their job) so you know what I'm talking about. Boredom is a reminder that we are not "showing up" in our life. If you spend a lot of time being bored it only means you're not uncovering who you are and you aren't "showing up", you're kinda going through the motions. It doesn't matter if you have an "intellectually strong" philosophical position or if you have an incredible ability to justify or defend that position, if you are bored that's you reminding you that you're not doing everything necessary to bring you forth in to life.

Your style of writing is to taunt others to engage you by returning your serve in a game you control. No fun and boring.

See jeeprs post on the previous page of this thread for an example of a person engaged in the conversation. A person attempting to make a contribution.

Dasein

@Alan McDougall,

Hi Dasein - as much as I appreciate your remarks, I want to say that I am pretty good friends with Longknowledge, on the Forum anyway, and have learned things from his contributions on Ortega and had some very interesting conversations about that topic. It is true that I do try and engage with the various contributors here in a genuine way, and in response to their particular point of view, if I can, but as far as I am concerned, I am not the only person here who does that.

@Whoever,

Whoever;137473 wrote:

Hi Reconstructo

Just wanted to say I'm right with you on the discrete/continuous idea. Do you know Tobias Danzig, Einstein's favourite mathematician? He writes about this. The sleight of hand of the Dedekind cut, the calculus etc etc. Zeno was right all along, imho, but the case is made more completely by Nagarjuna a few centuries later.

Thanks for chiming in! It's nice to share an interest in this issue. Yes, I've just been reading about Dedekind. I don't know Danzig but will soon find out.

Not long ago the importance of Zeno struck me. So I researched Calculus & sure enough, it's a card trick. Not to spit on it, for I think calculus is brilliant. (At the moment I am a math-head.) Have you see my Digital Time in Continuous Space thread? I would love to discuss this sort of thing. By the way, I feel that Wittgenstein tackles this in his own way in TLP. Both the spatial and the logical "transcendentals."

Philosophy Forum

What is Metaphysics and quotes on what it is?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know