Philosophy Forum

New Topics

New Posts

Read Topic
Reply

On Being in Heidegger and Aristotle

Philosophy Forum
» MetaPhilosophy
» On Being in Heidegger and Aristotle
» Page 2

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;98867 wrote:

But seriously [Dasein], I'll look at all your posts and your blog and get back to you. Thanks for your attention.

Dear Dasein,

Last night I read all of your posts, your thread and your blog, including Don't Pick Up the Extrusion from a Digestive System, ooops, I mean Turd, and Reading Heidegger.

You say that you're 61 years old and you've been studying Heidegger for the last 15 years and have read Heidegger's Being and Time Obras completas (Complete Works) and I must say that I never have had to read any of his works more than once in order to understand them. [Well, I have had difficulty with his The Idea of Principle in Leibnitz and the Evolution of Deductive Theory, but that's probably because I'm not a professional philosopher.]

One of Ortega's sayings is "Clarity is the courtesy of the philosopher." Today I had the opportunity to go to the library to see what they had by Heidegger. On the shelf I saw, side by side, a large volume, Being and Time, and a much slimmer volume, The Question of Being. Guess which one I chose?

Anyway, this evening, seated in the living room in my favorite recliner (I do not have a "Philosophy Study"), I proceeded to read The Question of Being, or rather, the Preface to The Question of Being, by the translators William Kluback and Jean T. Wilde. There I was intrigued by the following passage:

Quote:

In Heidegger the theological and philosophical presuppositions of German Idealism are fulfilled insofar as he has preserved the understanding of the struggle between light and darkness, divine and human, good and evil. His failure to find the ground of their reconciliation points to the fact that while Heidegger is the fulfillment of Idealism he is at the same time its destruction. In the overcoming of Idealism, theology slips away from philosophy, revealing only a possibility of a poetical reconciliation of the human crisis.(p. 9)

Now Ortega himself was dedicated to "the overcoming of Idealism." Having studied Nietzsche in his youth and having gone to Germany in his twenties for training in Philosophy with the neoKantians Cohen and Natorp, he was well aware of the Idealist position. Then in 1912-13, he read Husserl's Ideen and immediately realized both the benefits of Husserl's phenomenological method and the limitations of Husserl's phenomenological reduction as a continuation of Idealism. He then staked out his own philosophy in his first book, Meditations of Quixote of 1914.

By 1924 he was stating, in El tema de nuestro tiempo ("The Theme of Our Time," as his book should have been titled, instead of "The Modern Theme"), that the "theme of our time" was "the overcoming of idealism". (For the best introduction to this aspect of Ortega's thought in English, see: , by , Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1995, especially Part One.)

Now I have not read enough Heidegger to understand in what way his thought represents "the fulfillment of idealism" and "at the same time its destruction," as well as, perhaps, "the overcoming of Idealism," as the last sentence quoted above would seem to imply. But I do understand what Ortega meant by his "overcoming of Idealism."

Further reading in the book led me to the first "Introduction", also by the translators, entitled "A Heidggerian Limitation." I was puzzled right away because it seemed a strange title for an Introduction. As I read it, I became aware that this was really an essay on Heidegger's entire philosophy indicating, as the title suggests, its "limitation." Curious as to what this might be, I found the following paragraph:
[Quote]Philosophy has been predominantly involved in an understanding of man and Heidegger has attempted to face this problem in an ontological way. His thought, however, shows limitations [SIC!] and a serious incompleteness with respect to an adequate philosophical analysis of the meaning of human existence. Heidegger's limitation lies in the fact that he failed to consider man within both an ontological and a practical framework. He fails to understand that man's external life, expressed in his political, economic and social experience determines and reveals the ontological nature of his existence. Heidegger in Sein und Zeit and analyzes the ontological meaning of man and shows that man is only insofar as his being reveals to him a primal Being through which he becomes conscious of himself existing. In the ethical and moral questions are posed but Heidegger, after having analyzed the ontological meaning of man, fails to provide adequately for a moral and ethical framework.(p.12)[/Quote]
And later:
[Quote]To equate man exclusively with his ontological structure is inadequate. The inadequacy of this position lies in the fact that man, ontologically revealed and defined, can be conscious of this state of being only as it realizes itself as being something other than the practical states of being such as the political, social and economic. These forms are for the ontological, the "other." These "other" forms of being are historical and describe man's doings, creations and achievements. These are descriptive items or adjectives. They describe man as he does things. These adjectival qualifications belong to man and describe him, not ontologically but historically. (p, 130[/Quote]
Now this last passage is of especial interest because, in addition to the "overcoming of Idealism" that Ortega's thought represents, it is also an "overcoming of Ontology" in any traditional sense, by focusing on the "historical" and "man's doings, creations and achievements," including "doing" Ontology and Philosophy. He viewed his "Historical Reason" as going "Beyond Philosophy" to "a new way of thinking." As he said in his essay "History as a System" in 1935: "Man does not have a Nature [in the sense of a fixed Being] but rather . . . a History." As I've said elsewhere in this Forum, we now know that "Nature" [in the sense of the "physical world"] also does not have a "Nature" [in the sense of a fixed Being], but rather it also has a "History."

I will say that I did try to slug through Heidegger's writing in the rest of the book, but about half way through I gave up and skimmed the rest. I can see the difficulty you had in understanding him. Although I see somewhat better what you mean by the "Line", I can't say I really understand what he is getting at in the whole work. [The "Introductions," inexplicably, did not help at all.]

I would recommend that you read at least one of Ortega's works. I would suggest Some Lessons in Metaphysics, based on his classroom lectures of 1933-1934, when he was at the height of his influence in Spain. You can really get a feel for his style and approach in this work. [There's a copy at the University of New Mexico Library,at ZIM 2nd Floor, call number: B4568 O73 U53, or here.]
　
I look forward to having more interesting exchanges with you on a variety of topics and I wish you well in your endeavors. If you have any questions about Ortega's thought, please feel free to contact me through the Forum or directly at [EMAIL="[email protected]"][email protected][/EMAIL].

Your "Friend,"

longknowledge

PS: See my new thread here.

@longknowledge,

Thank you for a fascinating post. I was amazed by this passage:

Quote:

Philosophy has been predominantly involved in an understanding of man and Heidegger has attempted to face this problem in an ontological way. His thought, however, shows limitations [SIC!] and a serious incompleteness with respect to an adequate philosophical analysis of the meaning of human existence. Heidegger's limitation lies in the fact that he failed to consider man within both an ontological and a practical framework. He fails to understand that man's external life, expressed in his political, economic and social experience determines and reveals the ontological nature of his existence. Heidegger in Sein und Zeit and analyzes the ontological meaning of man and shows that man is only insofar as his being reveals to him a primal Being through which he becomes conscious of himself existing. In the ethical and moral questions are posed but Heidegger, after having analyzed the ontological meaning of man, fails to provide adequately for a moral and ethical framework.(p.12)

Did someone really say that? What hubris. It seems to be based on a serious misunderstanding, by which the writer is a lot more clever than his target, as opposed to a lot less.

I am no expert, but it seems clear that by the end of his life Heidegger had come around to the Zen view. This is Bradley's Absolute Idealism. How he derived his politics and sociology from this metaphysical position is not at all clear to me.

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;97543 wrote:

This passage revealed to me not only the difference between Heidegger's and Aristotle's understanding of Being, but also an awareness of the origin of Ortega's emphasis on the need for a shift from Being to Be-ing, from a static noun to and active verb. The operative Ens, , is an active verb, "actualizing."

I'm not sure how anyone can claim that Heidegger saw Being as a static existence. Heidegger held off on studying modern philosophy until he felt he had a thorough understanding of Aristotle's idea of being and he makes it clear that both he and Aristotle see it manifesting through properties, suggesting that the potentiality of it is of extreme importance. Even if pure Being is immutable, it still actively differs in the way it manifests, and this is crucial to Being-in-the-World. Being-in-the-World is the ultimate escape from idealism, and that is why Husserl describes phenomenology as a radical empiricism.

longknowledge;97543 wrote:

What this passage also triggered in me is the connection of Be-ing with the idea of "sustainability," for which I have been trying to make a metaphysical analysis. "Be-ing" would be the same as "Sustain-ing in Being." And, with the massive extinction of species going on and the destruction of entire ecosystems, we now understand more fully what Ortega meant by animals and plants, as well as ourselves, "being in jeopardy."

Sustaining always involves a degree of potentiality as nothing ever just is. The persistence of things was a failed idea of Locke's that I feel Heidegger makes quite evident he was directly trying to avoid.

longknowledge;97543 wrote:

]Now if the "physical world" as physicists currently understand it, and every thing in it, is made up of energy, then we must hearken back to the Heraclitean idea of "flux" to represent that world, and the question for metaphysicians, as they understand the current work of physicists, chemists, biologists and ecologists, becomes: "How are 'physical things' 'sustained in being'?" For the physicist it's "balancing forces;" for the chemist it's "forming bonds;" for the biologist it's "maintaining homeostasis;" and for the ecologist it's "sustaining ecosystems." What I am proposing is that "sustainability" can be the generic term for all of these processes, and that "sustain-ing" is the new "be-ing." "Sustain-ology" instead of "Ont-ology?"[/SIZE]

I don't feel it is a coincidence that Heraclitus was one of Heidegger's largest Greek influences. The concept of being-in-the-world is impossible without some sort of potentiality in the way Being manifests. This is why Dasein is necessary; we as finite beings can only experience Being through Dasein, i.e. as an active perspective.

@MMP2506,

MMP2506

It is our 'make up' as humans 'be-ing' to be suspended between the 'desire' to uncover who we are (reveal our 'be-ing') and the 'desire' to cover up our 'nakedness'.

(I use quotes around 'desire' because it is not really some 'thing' called 'desire', it is who you are, you are the 'be-ing' suspended).

It is as if 'who you are' is the 'eye' of a tornado where everything is calm and centered, and the 'things' flying around you at 200+ miles per hour are 'inviting' you to 'come out and play' thereby distracting you from 'be-ing' you. Be aware of 2 things 1) that just because you enjoy the 'distraction' doesn't stop you from 'be-ing' the 'eye of the storm'. If you weren't the 'eye of the storm' you couldn't be distracted, could you? 2) You will get tired of the distraction.

Philosophy is not about the philosopher! However, it is about the 'reader' of philosophy. I specifically single out 'reader' because it is our 'proclivity' to distract our 'selves' by representing our 'selves' as an 'object'. Who we are is 'be-ing', reading, 'be-ing' what we are reading.

All 'philosophy' is the same philosophy. Philosophy addresses 'be-ing'. When we 'philosophize' we 're-cognize' who we are in our 'nakedness'. We are then 'thrown' to covering up our 'be-ing' by 're-presenting' 'be-ing' as 'a combination of characteristics', 'concepts'.

(The word 'concept' comes from 'con' and 'perception'. 'Con' is defined as 'the argument against something' and 'perception' has to do with what you perceive. Therefore 'concept' is the 'argument against what you perceive'.)

When we 'compare' Socrates to Plato or Heraclitus, Heidegger to Aristotle, Aquinas, Nietzsche, Husserl, or y Gasset we do so for the sole purpose of confusing our 'selves' and others from seeing that the only thing that matters is 'be-ing'. As long as you are comparing the 'features and benefits' of the various 'brands' of philosophy you don't have to address 'you' and who you're 'be-ing'.

In an earlier post (in another thread I said;
"More accurately "da sein" is "there be-ing" or "be-ing there". "Be-ing there" gives you 'no-thing' to hold on to. The propensity of "humans, be-ing" is to objectify be-ing so we can have comfort in being able to grasp on to something and prove its existence by 'constructing a combination of characteristics' (concepts)."

"The inclination to "grasp on to something and prove its existence by 'constructing a combination of characteristics' (concepts)" removes you from consideration. You are no longer considering you as you really are. When you remove 'you' from consideration the 'concepts' you acquire (through "understanding") are no longer valid, they are irrelevant, and they don't satisfy your 'hunger'. So 'life' for you is about acquiring 'concepts' and complaining that the 'concepts' "don't satisfy you", and then acquiring more 'concepts' which don't satisfy you, and on and on and on. One day you will tire of 'chasing your tail', you will give up your quest, and you will die an angry person wondering what all of that was about."

Quote:
Originally Posted by longknowledge
This passage revealed to me not only the difference between Heidegger's and Aristotle's understanding of Being, but also an awareness of the origin of Ortega's emphasis on the need for a shift from Being to Be-ing, from a static noun to and active verb. The operative Ens, energea n, is an active verb, "actualizing."

Everything I am saying is easy to see in language, you just have to 'tweak' where you are 'seeing' from. The language we 'use' actually uses us to perpetuate itself.

Notice in the quote above how longknowledge uses 'This passage' to represent something 'revealed' to him (as if there could ever be a 'this passage'). What actually happened is that longknowledge read something that 'reminded' him of who he is and he attempted to 're-present' that experience to us by comparing Heidegger's 're-presentations' to Aristotle's 're-presentations' to Ortega's 're-presentations'. While 'spinning off' into the 200+ mph. winds he never noticed that his 're-presentations', Heidegger's 're-presentations', Aristotle's 're-presentations', and Ortega's 're-presentations' had nothing to do with what he was 'reminded' of. They only 'distracted' him from 'be-ing' who he is.

Longknowledge's 'argument against what he perceived' became your 'argument' and you didn't even have to perceive anything. All you had to do was 're-member' your 'argument against what you perceived' from the past and re-state your position.

There is no 'contribution' being made here. There is no resolution, nothing to stand on, no place to stand to move the conversation forward. There are only 2 people distracting themselves with a game of "Pong" and inviting others to 'buy a ticket'. This is what passes itself off as 'life'. - LMFAO

Ultimately, we are all 'naked', living in a world of 'naked' people trying to convince each other in our own way that we're not 'naked'.

Dasein (be-ing there)

@Dasein,

Dasein;163453 wrote:

MMP2506

(The word 'concept' comes from 'con' and 'perception'. 'Con' is defined as 'the argument against something' and 'perception' has to do with what you perceive. Therefore 'concept' is the 'argument against what you perceive'.)

Heideggerian fantasy etymology again!

concept, n. [Derived chiefly from the Latin concept-um (a thing) conceived, from the past participle of the Latin concip-re to conceive.]
　
conceive, v. [Derived from the Old French concev-eir, -oir, from the Latin concipre, f. con- altogether + capre to take.]

Source: OED

[QUOTE]There is no 'contribution' being made here. There is no resolution, nothing to stand on, no place to stand to move the conversation forward. There are only 2 people distracting themselves with a game of "Pong" and inviting others to 'buy a ticket'. This is what passes itself off as 'life'.[/QUOTE]Make that 3. Ping!

Quote:

Dasein (be-ing there)

longknowledge (liv-ing here)

:flowers:

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;163549 wrote:

conceive, v. [Derived from the Old French concev-eir, -oir, from the Latin concipre, f. con- altogether + capre to take.]

To take all together and unify.... to circumscribe. To install an essence, shall we say? Or is this an imperfect word choice?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;163561 wrote:

To take all together and unify.... to circumscribe. To install an essence, shall we say? Or is this an imperfect word choice?

Yes. To take individual phenomena and find their aspects in common and then give this commonality a name.

:flowers:

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;163568 wrote:

Yes. To take individual phenomena and find their aspects in common and then give this commonality a name.

:flowers:

I agree. And I think that "beings" are not so different from the same, to put it mildly. I feel that the accident/essence distinction is right on the money. What really is the difference between a being and an essence? I'm not sure I can find one. Of course we can rarefy the concept of being until we have Being or the number one, abstract unity. And we can try to name the whole, the all, the everything. At both points it becomes a little strange, although admittedly quite fascinating. :Glasses:

@Dasein,

Dasein;163453 wrote:

It is as if 'who you are' is the 'eye' of a tornado where everything is calm and centered, and the 'things' flying around you at 200+ miles per hour are 'inviting' you to 'come out and play' thereby distracting you from 'be-ing' you. Be aware of 2 things 1) that just because you enjoy the 'distraction' doesn't stop you from 'be-ing' the 'eye of the storm'. If you weren't the 'eye of the storm' you couldn't be distracted, could you? 2) You will get tired of the distraction.

You are free to read Heidegger however you'd like, but you seem to be taking a very Sartre-ian approach to Heidegger which is a very controversial stand.

I will never get distracted, because Dasein is an inherent questioner which never tires. The search for authenticity is not a hollow search, people do reach it, and the distractions serve a purpose to allow us to keep searching. We may never be free from all distractions, but we can free ourselves from most.

Dasein;163453 wrote:

Philosophy is not about the philosopher! However, it is about the 'reader' of philosophy. I specifically single out 'reader' because it is our 'proclivity' to distract our 'selves' by representing our 'selves' as an 'object'. Who we are is 'be-ing', reading, 'be-ing' what we are reading.

Philosophy is precisely about the philosopher, our else hermeneutics would be a non-existent property. Dasein always takes a stand on its Being, and from this stand, much can be learned about how Being was manifested there.

Are you suggesting all philosophies are relative?

I might as well be studying antony flew in order to free myself from the natural attitude. Maybe he can teach me how being-in-my-world occurs?

I'm not sure if you are, but slipping into relativism is extremely dangerous and completely, even object-ively, goes against phenomenology's search for universal Truths.

Dasein;163453 wrote:

All 'philosophy' is the same philosophy. Philosophy addresses 'be-ing'. When we 'philosophize' we 're-cognize' who we are in our 'nakedness'. We are then 'thrown' to covering up our 'be-ing' by 're-presenting' 'be-ing' as 'a combination of characteristics', 'concepts'.

We are not the ones doing the "cognizing." The philosophies "coginize" within us depending upon our readiness to hear it. We can never "cover up" our Being because it is intrinsically intertwined with our Dasein, even if we are too caught up in inauthenticity. Being always manifests here or there, sometimes with characteristics, and all that can be said is Being bes. Being manifests how Being wishes to manifest. It is our job to accurately describe its manifestation as much as possible, and that way we can get closer to true objectivity, not modern objectivity.

Dasein;163453 wrote:

When we 'compare' Socrates to Plato or Heraclitus, Heidegger to Aristotle, Aquinas, Nietzsche, Husserl, or y Gasset we do so for the sole purpose of confusing our 'selves' and others from seeing that the only thing that matters is 'be-ing'. As long as you are comparing the 'features and benefits' of the various 'brands' of philosophy you don't have to address 'you' and who you're 'be-ing'.

Who I am is due to my facticity. Dasein is being-there, or being with a perspective. My factual existence always allows Being to appear.

The only thing that matters is Being, but Being bes differently. By studying the different ways that Being bes, you can see patterns in the way Being bes. This is how you learn, and this is how you avoid solipsism, but you seem quite happy in your own mind. I wouldn't want to disrupt you.

Dasein;163453 wrote:

In an earlier post (in another thread I said;
"More accurately "da sein" is "there be-ing" or "be-ing there". "Be-ing there" gives you 'no-thing' to hold on to. The propensity of "humans, be-ing" is to objectify be-ing so we can have comfort in being able to grasp on to something and prove its existence by 'constructing a combination of characteristics' (concepts)."

We don't construct characteristics, the characteristics are constructed by Being itself. We learn about Being from those characteristics because it is Being that manifested them.

Dasein;163453 wrote:

Notice in the quote above how longknowledge uses 'This passage' to represent something 'revealed' to him (as if there could ever be a 'this passage'). What actually happened is that longknowledge read something that 'reminded' him of who he is and he attempted to 're-present' that experience to us by comparing Heidegger's 're-presentations' to Aristotle's 're-presentations' to Ortega's 're-presentations'. While 'spinning off' into the 200+ mph. winds he never noticed that his 're-presentations', Heidegger's 're-presentations', Aristotle's 're-presentations', and Ortega's 're-presentations' had nothing to do with what he was 'reminded' of. They only 'distracted' him from 'be-ing' who he is.

When things remind is of something else, that is a revealing and an appearing of that other thing. When we read Heidegger and Aristotle appears, that is an important occurrence, not an accident due to our illusion. This is how immortality is achieved for the philosopher, and it is dependent upon the reader's knowledge of philosophy, but also on the intentions of the philosopher who is philosophizing.

The beauty of hermeneutics is that we can understand another Dasein, and we can do so in a way that allows that Dasein to re-occur within us. As far as I know, only humans have that ability, and by taking it away and leaving us with our own illusions, you leave us no better off than amoeba.

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;99153 wrote:

Now this last passage is of especial interest because, in addition to the "overcoming of Idealism" that Ortega's thought represents, it is also an "overcoming of Ontology" in any traditional sense, by focusing on the "historical" and "man's doings, creations and achievements," including "doing" Ontology and Philosophy. He viewed his "Historical Reason" as going "Beyond Philosophy" to "a new way of thinking." As he said in his essay "History as a System" in 1935: "Man does not have a Nature [in the sense of a fixed Being] but rather . . . a History." As I've said elsewhere in this Forum, we now know that "Nature" [in the sense of the "physical world"] also does not have a "Nature" [in the sense of a fixed Being], but rather it also has a "History."

I can strongly relate to all this, and I associate very similar thought with absolute idealism. I've got this pet word, too: "nontology." Smile

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;163549 wrote:

Heideggerian fantasy etymology again!

concept, n. [Derived chiefly from the Latin concept-um (a thing) conceived, from the past participle of the Latin concip-re to conceive.]
　
conceive, v. [Derived from the Old French concev-eir, -oir, from the Latin concipre, f. con- altogether + capre to take.]

Source: OED

Make that 3. Ping!

longknowledge (ar-guing here)

:flowers:

longknowledge;

1) Isn't there some 'rule' about using a word to define itself?

2) Look up 'con' in the dictionary. It is the "argument against something". "concept-um (a thing) conceived" is the argument against the perception because the 'perception' is not a definable 'thing'. You can only 'point to' the perception by 'combining characteristics together' to turn a perception into a 'thing' and you still wouldn't 'nail it'.

3) Thank you for 'expertly' distracting your 'self' from what I'm saying. You did an excellent job of demonstrating my point.

Dasein (be-ing there)

---------- Post added 05-12-2010 at 05:55 PM ----------

[QUOTE=Reconstructo;163570]I agree. And I think that "beings" are not so different from the same, to put it mildly. I feel that the accident/essence distinction is right on the money. What really is the difference between a being and an essence? I'm not sure I can find one. Of course we can rarefy the concept of being until we have Being or the number one, abstract unity. And we can try to name the whole, the all, the everything. At both points it becomes a little strange, although admittedly quite fascinating. [/QUOTE]

Reconstructo;

I have read all of your posts in this thread and I agree with the accuracy of everything you have said. However, your conjecture is just that, conjecture. It is not what I am 'pointing to when I use the word 'be-ing'.

I will probably mutilate what I am about to say, please give me a little latitude.

Somewhere I read or heard something that points to the following: It said something along the lines of "You can read every book ever written and still not 'know' who you are. But once you 'know' who you are you understand every book that has been ever written."

Prior to 'knowing' all we have is conjecture. After 'knowing' you will consider 'conjecture' a waste of your time.

I am not on 'the path', I 'am' the path as you are the path as longknowledge is the path. All I am doing is attempting to let everybody know that there is no 'where' to get to because you are already there.

When you tire of the distraction you will turn around and surrender to who you are.

Dasein (be-ing there)

[CENTER][CENTER]You can be who you are in a world of machines,
but you can't be a machine and know who you are.[/CENTER][/CENTER]

@Dasein,

Dasein;163618 wrote:

longknowledge;

1) Isn't there some 'rule' about using a word to define itself?

I was showing its derivation, not its meaning.

Quote:

2) Look up 'con' in the dictionary. It is the "argument against something".

I did and the dictionary "argues against" you:

con, noun 1 - The action or post of conning a ship, steerage.

con, noun 2 - A rap with the knuckles, a knock, a fillip.

con, noun 3 - A squirrel.

con, noun 4 - A familiar or slang abbreviation of certain words, e. g., con for convict; con game for confidence game.

con, noun 5 - A convention, an organized gathering of people with a shared interest, esp. among enthusiasts of science fiction and role-playing games.

con-, prefix - of Latin origin. The form assumed by the Latin preposition com (in classical Latin, as a separate word, cum) before all consonants except the labials, h, r, and (in later times) l, as concutre, condnre, conflure, congrure, conjurere, conqurere, consistere, conspirere, constuere, contrahere, convincere. In earlier times it was also used before l-, as conloquium; but here it was in later times always assimilated, as colloquium, and so in the modern languages. On the other hand it was not used in classical Latin before n (e.g. cntus, cnubium, etc.), but has been introduced subsequently, as conntus, connubium, and this spelling is followed in English. For meaning, see com-.

com-, prefix - prefix of Lat. origin. The archaic form of the preposition which in classical L. was as a separate word written cum; com- being retained in combination before the labials b, p, m, and before a few words beginning with vowels, as in comes, comit-; the m was assimilated before r as corruptus, in later times also before l as collectus; dropped before vowels generally, h and gn-, as coalescere, coercere, cohabitare, cognatus; originally, also before n, as conatus, conivere, but in later MSS. and texts assimilated, as connatus, connivere; before all other consonants com- was changed to con-, q.v. But in some English derivatives, com- has taken the place of L. con- before f, as in comfort. The sense is 'together, together with, in combination or union', also 'altogether, completely', and hence intensive.

Source: OED

Quote:

"concept-um (a thing) conceived" is the argument against the perception because the 'perception' is not a definable 'thing'.

concept, n. - Logic and Philos. The product of the faculty of conception; an idea of a class of objects, a general notion or idea.

Source: Ibid.

concipio, cepi, ceptus, -um [com- + capio], to take hold of, take up, take in, take, receive

Source: Charlton T. Lewis, An Elementary Latin Dictionary

Quote:

You can only 'point to' the perception by 'combining characteristics together' to turn a perception into a 'thing' and you still wouldn't 'nail it'.

I agree. Your 'point', but who's counting?

Quote:

3) Thank you for 'expertly' distracting your 'self' from what I'm saying. You did an excellent job of demonstrating my point.

You're welcome, but what's the point? I lost track of the score.

Pong!

:flowers:

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;97543 wrote:

Now if the "physical world" as physicists currently understand it, and every thing in it, is made up of energy, then we must hearken back to the Heraclitean idea of "flux" to represent that world, and the question for metaphysicians, as they understand the current work of physicists, chemists, biologists and ecologists, becomes: "How are 'physical things' 'sustained in being'?" For the physicist it's "balancing forces;" for the chemist it's "forming bonds;" for the biologist it's "maintaining homeostasis;" and for the ecologist it's "sustaining ecosystems." What I am proposing is that "sustainability" can be the generic term for all of these processes, and that "sustain-ing" is the new "be-ing." "Sustain-ology" instead of "Ont-ology?"

I'm still catching up on this thread but what captured my attention in the OP was the last paragraph quoted above. I cannot let it pass without mentioning Heidegger's "Question Concerning Technology" which I have just become familiar with.

Sustainability is Thee watchword among ecologists and ecological ethics. I consider this to be Thee antithesis to Progress. (This implies some synthesis which I cannot yet name.)

In the Technology essay H. contrasts the modern understanding of technology as a "standing reserve" contrasted with the understanding of technology that is more integrated less compartmentalized and separated from other areas of life.

One example (and not my own) is the wood stove vs. the electric heater. The wood stove served as a central hearth for the house. The lifestyle of the household was fully integrated and shaped by the wood stove. Cooking, cutting down trees for wood, gathering around it for warmth. The various roles of family members were also shaped (and revealed) by the technology of the stove. In contrast the electric heater encourages the "standing reserve" model of technology. Heat is available at the flip of a switch and we don't really know where it comes from maybe coal, maybe nuclear, it's just there in the same way that we can tap into the standing reserve of food from the supermarket. The electric heater doesn't really shape (or reveal) the roles of the household members except perhaps by negatively defining those roles (i.e. Dad no longer have to chop wood; Mom no longer has to tend the fire for cooking).

How does the growing awareness of a need to shift towards sustainability compare and contrast with the still predominant understanding of technology as standing reserve? The shift toward sustainability is a recognition of the inherent flaws of seeing technology/resources as standing reserve. And I think this is on point with what longknowledge is proposing.

Sustainability suggests reaching a point of equilibrium and stasis. By this, the revealing that Heidegger made so much of becomes more of a repetition. And in many cases this is just fine with me. But I do worry that it could be over-applied.

Progress ought to end in Sustainability. The infinite warehouse of the standing reserve is an illusion. But the sustainable warehouse of the standing reserve is also an illusion. Being, for Heidegger is not merely sustaining it is also a revelation. Revelations can be sustained but to say that all Ont-ology is Sustain-ology suggests that all that IS, all that has Being has already been revealed. This I think, is a mistake.

As Progress in one field ends in Sustainability, Progress in another field may very well begin. Our Ontology must be open to the New. It must be open to that which has not yet been revealed. By this Sustainology, though I do consider it to be, and welcome it as, the still burgeoning Zeitgeist of our age, can only be a division of a more comprehensive Ontology.

@Dasein,

Dasein;163453 wrote:

MMP2506

It is our 'make up' as humans 'be-ing' to be suspended between the 'desire' to uncover who we are (reveal our 'be-ing') and the 'desire' to cover up our 'nakedness'.

(I use quotes around 'desire' because it is not really some 'thing' called 'desire', it is who you are, you are the 'be-ing' suspended).

It is as if 'who you are' is the 'eye' of a tornado where everything is calm and centered, and the 'things' flying around you at 200+ miles per hour are 'inviting' you to 'come out and play' thereby distracting you from 'be-ing' you. Be aware of 2 things 1) that just because you enjoy the 'distraction' doesn't stop you from 'be-ing' the 'eye of the storm'. If you weren't the 'eye of the storm' you couldn't be distracted, could you? 2) You will get tired of the distraction.

Philosophy is not about the philosopher! However, it is about the 'reader' of philosophy. I specifically single out 'reader' because it is our 'proclivity' to distract our 'selves' by representing our 'selves' as an 'object'. Who we are is 'be-ing', reading, 'be-ing' what we are reading.

All 'philosophy' is the same philosophy. Philosophy addresses 'be-ing'. When we 'philosophize' we 're-cognize' who we are in our 'nakedness'. We are then 'thrown' to covering up our 'be-ing' by 're-presenting' 'be-ing' as 'a combination of characteristics', 'concepts'.

(The word 'concept' comes from 'con' and 'perception'. 'Con' is defined as 'the argument against something' and 'perception' has to do with what you perceive. Therefore 'concept' is the 'argument against what you perceive'.)

When we 'compare' Socrates to Plato or Heraclitus, Heidegger to Aristotle, Aquinas, Nietzsche, Husserl, or y Gasset we do so for the sole purpose of confusing our 'selves' and others from seeing that the only thing that matters is 'be-ing'. As long as you are comparing the 'features and benefits' of the various 'brands' of philosophy you don't have to address 'you' and who you're 'be-ing'.

In an earlier post (in another thread I said;
"More accurately "da sein" is "there be-ing" or "be-ing there". "Be-ing there" gives you 'no-thing' to hold on to. The propensity of "humans, be-ing" is to objectify be-ing so we can have comfort in being able to grasp on to something and prove its existence by 'constructing a combination of characteristics' (concepts)."

"The inclination to "grasp on to something and prove its existence by 'constructing a combination of characteristics' (concepts)" removes you from consideration. You are no longer considering you as you really are. When you remove 'you' from consideration the 'concepts' you acquire (through "understanding") are no longer valid, they are irrelevant, and they don't satisfy your 'hunger'. So 'life' for you is about acquiring 'concepts' and complaining that the 'concepts' "don't satisfy you", and then acquiring more 'concepts' which don't satisfy you, and on and on and on. One day you will tire of 'chasing your tail', you will give up your quest, and you will die an angry person wondering what all of that was about."

Quote:
Originally Posted by longknowledge
This passage revealed to me not only the difference between Heidegger's and Aristotle's understanding of Being, but also an awareness of the origin of Ortega's emphasis on the need for a shift from Being to Be-ing, from a static noun to and active verb. The operative Ens, energea n, is an active verb, "actualizing."

Everything I am saying is easy to see in language, you just have to 'tweak' where you are 'seeing' from. The language we 'use' actually uses us to perpetuate itself.

Notice in the quote above how longknowledge uses 'This passage' to represent something 'revealed' to him (as if there could ever be a 'this passage'). What actually happened is that longknowledge read something that 'reminded' him of who he is and he attempted to 're-present' that experience to us by comparing Heidegger's 're-presentations' to Aristotle's 're-presentations' to Ortega's 're-presentations'. While 'spinning off' into the 200+ mph. winds he never noticed that his 're-presentations', Heidegger's 're-presentations', Aristotle's 're-presentations', and Ortega's 're-presentations' had nothing to do with what he was 'reminded' of. They only 'distracted' him from 'be-ing' who he is.

Longknowledge's 'argument against what he perceived' became your 'argument' and you didn't even have to perceive anything. All you had to do was 're-member' your 'argument against what you perceived' from the past and re-state your position.

There is no 'contribution' being made here. There is no resolution, nothing to stand on, no place to stand to move the conversation forward. There are only 2 people distracting themselves with a game of "Pong" and inviting others to 'buy a ticket'. This is what passes itself off as 'life'. - LMFAO

Ultimately, we are all 'naked', living in a world of 'naked' people trying to convince each other in our own way that we're not 'naked'.

Dasein (be-ing there)

I finally got where your coming from, sorry it took me two days.

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;

con -adverb
1. Against a proposition, opinion, etc. arguments pro and con
2. The argument, position, arguer, or voter against something

Origin:
1575-85; short for L contra in opposition, against

As long as I have 'known' you via "Philosophy Forum" the one thing I can count on is that if I respond to your post, I am agreeing to participate in your argument.

I find that standing on one side of the net and hitting the 'ball' back to you is unsatisfying, no matter how impassioned your 'argument'. The argument is there for the sake of arguing. If this was a seminar I was leading I would point out to the other participants that arguing for your point of view is not 'thinking', it is only a 'justification' for staying stuck where you are and then I would ask you to leave the room because you have no intention to forwarding the conversation by making a contribution.

Since I can't ask you to leave the room, in the future when I see longknowledge as the 'poster' I will ignore it. If I don't, I will just involve myself with a person who thinks communication has something to do with keeping score.

Dasein (be-ing there)

[CENTER][CENTER]You can be who you are in a world of machines,[/CENTER]
[CENTER]but you can't be a machine and know who you are.[/CENTER][/CENTER]

@Dasein,

Dasein;163857 wrote:

longknowledge;

con -adverb
1. Against a proposition, opinion, etc. arguments pro and con
2. The argument, position, arguer, or voter against something

Origin:
1575-85; short for L contra in opposition, against

As long as I have 'known' you via "Philosophy Forum" the one thing I can count on is that if I respond to your post, I am agreeing to participate in your argument.

I find that standing on one side of the net and hitting the 'ball' back to you is unsatisfying, no matter how impassioned your 'argument'. The argument is there for the sake of arguing. If this was a seminar I was leading I would point out to the other participants that arguing for your point of view is not 'thinking', it is only a 'justification' for staying stuck where you are and then I would ask you to leave the room because you have no intention to forwarding the conversation by making a contribution.

Since I can't ask you to leave the room, in the future when I see longknowledge as the 'poster' I will ignore it. If I don't, I will just involve myself with a person who thinks communication has something to do with keeping score.

Dasein (be-ing there)

[CENTER]You can be who you are in a world of machines,

[CENTER]but you can't be a machine and know who you are.[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]

Touche!

I skipped over the adverb, because I didn't think it was relevant to the meaning of "concept." However, by showing its derivation and the derivation of the combining form "con-" I was admittedly trying to refute the meaning of "against" that you were attributing to it.

Now if you are "con-trasting" the phenomena of "con-ception" with the phenomena of "per-ception" (or should I call it "pro-ception"?), I would agree that one could argue the "pros" and "cons" of focusing on "concepts" while ignoring the "percepts". The important thing is to understand the relationships between them and how they affect our daily lives.

Ortega shows that concepts are tools that we invent to deal with the problems that we face in our daily lives. But these tools can be abused as well as used. A knife can be used for cutting up our food, but also for stabbing someone in the back.

What you seem to be saying is that all uses of concepts are "against" our best interests in living our lives, because they take us away from realizing who we really "are".

:flowers:

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;163889 wrote:

Touche!

I skipped over the adverb, because I didn't think it was relevant to the meaning of "concept." However, by showing its derivation and the derivation of the combining form "con-" I was admittedly trying to refute the meaning of "against" that you were attributing to it.

Now if you are "con-trasting" the phenomena of "con-ception" with the phenomena of "per-ception" (or should I call it "pro-ception"?), I would agree that one could argue the "pros" and "cons" of focusing on "concepts" while ignoring the "percepts". The important thing is to understand the relationships between them and how they affect our daily lives.

Ortega shows that concepts are tools that we invent to deal with the problems that we face in our daily lives. But these tools can be abused as well as used. A knife can be used for cutting up our food, but also for stabbing someone in the back.

What you seem to be saying is that all uses of concepts are "against" our best interests in living our lives, because they take us away from realizing who we really "are".
:flowers:

longknowledge

I appreciate you moving through everything you have conquered to get to this point in our 'relationship'.

What I am saying is that the world lives as if who they are is a concept (white, black, Irish, Mexican, Jewish, Muslim, etc.). We use concepts to 'define' who we are. We stake out a territory and defend it to the death and it doesn't matter who dies. We have war because those that 'promote' war for their own gain know this about us.

What would 'life' look like if we didn't "Pick Up The Turd"? What would 'show up' in its place?

Just like a carpenter uses a hammer to get the job done, we use concepts in everyday communication. The difference is the carpenter never thinks he is the hammer and wouldn't dream of creating an argument to defend that he is.

The 'perception' is who you are, the 'concept' is a 're-presentation' of the 'perception' by combining characteristics, i.e., using more concepts to define a 'perception' (always a lose/lose situation).

Conceptualization is the 'Angel that covereth' who we are.

BTW - we all 'skip over the adverb' when it doesn't support our argument.

Dasein (be-ing there)

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;

After sitting with my last post for awhile I determined that there was something 'missing'. What I said 'circled the wagons' and pointed towards what I needed to say but didn't quite 'get there', in my opinion.

What I am about to say may be 'cumbersome'; require 'imagination' and a 'leap' from the reader.

Here we go off into the wild blue yonder.

The first distinction I want to make is the distinction between the physical body (I call it my monkey or the sausage bag, as in 'The monkey may be 61 years old, but I'm not") and 'be-ing'.

In everyday common language we say "I hurt my finger", or "My head hurts". We also say "I have a headache" and "I broke my leg". Then there's "I am in love", "I'm in heaven", or "I'm in deep do-do".

I say this everyday common language points to a clue that we are missing. We take this 'clue' for granted because, quite frankly, it can't be captured by language. Since the distinction can't be captured by language it has to be made outside of language.

In everyday common speaking we distinguish I, my, & I'm from finger, head, leg, in love, in heaven, and deep do-do and what's fascinating is that you can't say it any other way.

If we distinguish I, my, & I'm from finger, head, leg, in love, in heaven, and deep do-do, then I say we aren't finger, aching head, broken leg, in love, in heaven, and deep do-do, right?

If you aren't all of the above and the dictionary can't capture I, my, & I'm (look it up for your 'self'), then who are you? Does 'be-ing' reside 'in the monkey' and we are just looking out of the eyes (the windows to the soul)? Interesting isn't it? Does 'be-ing' reside in close proximity to the monkey?

Is the difference between war and peace the difference between 'be-ing' and the monkey?

Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Remember the discussion between 'perception' and 'concepts'? Betcha thought I was going to forget why I started this, huh?

Anyway, I say that all 'philosophers' (including the famous, the unpublished, and the ones reading this on the Philosophy Forum) have pondered the distinction between the 'world' and 'be-ing' and because language is 'of this world' they have found it impossible to communicate because what you have to say comes out as 'gibberish' when you try to fit it into language.

Since what you have to say doesn't fit into language, when you read philosophy you have to make the distinction outside of language.

This begins the 'peek' into the crux of the problem. What you know will never fit into what you can prove!! The world needs to start 'be-ing' and stop trying to prove it.

If we can accomplish this, and we will, all wars will end, all racial injustice will stop, and since there will be no more 'property' all domestic violence will disappear.

Dasein (be-ing there)

[CENTER]You can be who you are in a world of machines,
but you can't be a machine and know who you are.[/CENTER]

@longknowledge,

I don't buy it, that "we are all naked." Sure, we are all killers, sinners, etc. We are all metaphors. Etc. But I don't trust the tone in these dramatic pronouncements. It still seems like the usual power play, an attempt to define. We draw our little circles around one another. See, I just did. I'm drawing little circles. Dancing my dance. Here I am, though, pretending to strip naked. Another metaphor might be that we are unsuccessful strippers, never achieving this fantasized nakedness. Or that we are never finished dressing for that interview with God, reality, nothingness, authenticity, the Good, whatever. Look ma, I'm authentic! It's no different, as far as the simple claim goes, from being washed in the blood of the lamb, or made decent by Reason. No doubt in my mind that some are happier than others. But how can we directly present our wisdom? (What is presence, and all that jazz..).

Rather than nakedness, I propose that we are always dressed in words, and dressing others in words, and dressing "reality" in words. I doubt ultimate nakedness as I doubt the "true" infinite. As soon as we try to write it or say, we find clothing, or finite scribbles.

@Reconstructo,

reconstructo;

The sign says 'No Loitering". If you're not going to buy anything please leave the store and stop reading the comic books! - heh! heh!

Dasein (be-ing there)

Philosophy Forum
» MetaPhilosophy
» On Being in Heidegger and Aristotle
» Page 2

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

On Being in Heidegger and Aristotle

Quick Links

My Account

able2know