Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

On Being in Heidegger and Aristotle

Philosophy Forum
» MetaPhilosophy
» On Being in Heidegger and Aristotle
» Page 3

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

@Dasein,

***Warning*** Big loiter here!! There is some mighty brilliant posts going on here. Dasein, your last few entries have been brilliant and I love the idea of yours that in some fundamental fashion, we imply our own distancing, subtraction or missingness when we use certain linguistic pronouncements. On the otherhand, there is no self-evident or a priori reason to accept the notion that maximising be-ing as oppossed to interpreting or proving the world - whatever that ammounts to - will increase personal freedom, augment happiness, end all the terrible miseries you have mentioned, and so on. The assumption that human well-being, the ending of wars, violence and racial injustice is intrinsically linked to 'be-ing' is charged with a moralised view of humanity, for no matter how plausible or humanitarian your argument may appear, no one could tell us whether humans are made into better humans by their ability to start be-ing, or not. This position is a profession of faith, an ideology, and we must all remain a little suspicious of the ideologue, no matter how well sounding. For this reason, for our own sake as critical thinkers, I think it a little rash and fool hardy to dismiss so quickly what Reconstructo is essentially drawing our attention to.

@longknowledge,

Quote:

Being to Be-ing from a static noun to an active verb- "acutualizing"- Long Knowledge

Hericlitean idea of "flux" to represent the world- Long Knowledge
The concept of being-in-the-world is impossible without some sort of potentiality in the way being manifests.- MMP2506

"The time has come for the seed sown by Heraclitus to bring forth its mighty harvest"- Jeeprs

The static aspect by contrast may indeed by that very tendency in Greek thought which gave rise to the wretched idea of Substance, which was to become, of course, Matter, Aha! So there is the culprit-Jeeprs

I probably should not enter into this discussion at all as my knowledge of both Heidegger and Ortega is virtually null but the question at the heart of the matter is one of the perenial tensions in the history of philosophy.
The tension is the one between the notion of reality as "becoming" (be-ing, process, flux, change) and reality as being (substances, essence, eternal, static). The dominant conception in the Western world has been reality as "being" eventually reduced to materialism; arguably the dominant conception in the Eastern world has been "becoming" flux, impermanence, illusion.

These tensions shows up in virtually all major areas of Western culture and thought:

In religion the notion of God as eternal, immutable, changeless perfection (transcendent being) is always in tension with the notion of god as loving and involved and active in the world (immanent becoming).

In science the rigid and continuous space time of Cartesian and Newtonian mechanics, and of fixed point particles obeying fixed deterministic laws (being) is in tension with the flexible space time of Einstein and the world of fleeting particles, obeying stochastic indeterministic laws, dependent on observation of quantum events (becoming).

If philosophy the eternal forms of Plato, and the dualism of Descartes (eventually reduced to materialistic monism as science lost its soul and then its mind and with it human experience, values and aesthetics) is in tension with romantic idealism and various philosophies of becoming and process.

My favorite solution to this tension of course is the process philosophy of Whitehead. Where mere matter is referred to as a "vacuous actuality" not reducible to mind or experience. Where reality consists of "actual occasions or events", moments or droplets of experience, spatiotemporal events. Where the "neoplatonic prejudices about the absolute superiority of being over becoming, or of the absolute or the infinite over the relative or the finite" are questioned. Where becoming is not regarded as a special and inferior case of being, but as the process wherely the realm of possiblity (which is only abstract and is deficiently actual) is brought into the realm of actuality

Of couse both being and becoming are factors of our human experience but the argument is that becoming is the process whereby reality and actuality is brought into "being" and the method whereby it is "sustained". Ultimate principle is becoming the creation of novelty and value, the actualization of eternal objects and divine aims.

@longknowledge,

I am still very interested, Dasien, in the idea of 'praxis' as it applies to Heidegger. I kind of understand what you're driving at a lot of the time, but I don't understand the practical import of it, what kind of life is implied by it, if you know what I mean....

As you know from previous dialogs I conceive of my own discipline in Buddhist terms, where the praxis is Zazen. I am wondering if there is an equivalent here.

@qualia,

qualia;164017 wrote:

***Warning*** Big loiter here!! There is some mighty brilliant posts going on here. Dasein, your last few entries have been brilliant and I love the idea of yours that in some fundamental fashion, we imply our own distancing, subtraction or missingness when we use certain linguistic pronouncements. On the otherhand, there is no self-evident or a priori reason to accept the notion that maximising be-ing as oppossed to interpreting or proving the world - whatever that ammounts to - will increase personal freedom, augment happiness, end all the terrible miseries you have mentioned, and so on. The assumption that human well-being, the ending of wars, violence and racial injustice is intrinsically linked to 'be-ing' is charged with a moralised view of humanity, for no matter how plausible or humanitarian your argument may appear, no one could tell us whether humans are made into better humans by their ability to start be-ing, or not. This position is a profession of faith, an ideology, and we must all remain a little suspicious of the ideologue, no matter how well sounding. For this reason, for our own sake as critical thinkers, I think it a little rash and fool hardy to dismiss so quickly what Reconstructo is essentially drawing our attention to.

How will interpreting or proving the existence of a world increase personal freedom or augment any sort of happiness, and thats assuming it is even possible? If the world is non-interpretive or could not ever completely be proved, then we would be forever searching for something which we could never attain. Like he said, we would be chasing our tails forever.

We are very adaptive beings who are already involved in the world. All we need to learn about ourselves we already know, for it is inside of us, in our world. We will intuitively learn how to live happily because that is the nature of our Being, but we can only do so if we trust our experiences. If we are constantly trying to interpret something, it is quite hard to trust in it.

To me it has little to do with ideology and much more with rationality.

@longknowledge,

To what degree are we talking about "life more abundant" and the "kingdom of God is within" you? I like both themes, so this is not meant in any ill sense. I think the always-already-involved concept is great. It's Hegelian, in my opinion, as well as Heideggerian. But Dasein is a Hegel word. Or does it go back further?

Being and Time. Steiner stressed how radical this title was, that being was often associated with the eternal. Man is Time, argued Kojeve, perhaps as much from Heidegger's influence on him as Hegel's. Would anyone agree that the theme of immersion is important here? Is this connect to being born in sin? Are we immersed also in the They, in the chatter? And then the seinsfrage opens us? I must say, there are beautiful concepts in Heidegger. The light that discloses beings, etc. Why did he fall for the Nazis? He saw an inner greatness there, yes?, that was beyond and above the ideology on record? I know this is scattershot.

@MMP2506,

MMP2506 wrote:

We are very adaptive beings who are already involved in the world. All we need to learn about ourselves we already know, for it is inside of us, in our world. We will intuitively learn how to live happily because that is the nature of our Being, but we can only do so if we trust our experiences. If we are constantly trying to interpret something, it is quite hard to trust in it. To me it has little to do with ideology and much more with rationality.

Sorry about that MMP2506, I should have made myself clearer. I'm using the term ideology - and I always try to use it in this fashion - in much the same manner that a German may use weltanschauung. Referring to a way of seeing, perceiving, evaluating and understanding the world. The interpretation of the world will be different to different folk, and the dispute over these interpretations can often be understood as the conflict of ideologies. Ideology, then, our world-views, amounts to little more than differing perspectives, and again, contain the promise to be intolerant to views which undermine them.

@qualia,

qualia;164192 wrote:

Sorry about that MMP2506, I should have made myself clearer. I'm using the term ideology - and I always try to use it in this fashion - in much the same manner that a German may use weltanschauung. Referring to a way of seeing, perceiving, evaluating and understanding the world. The interpretation of the world will be different to different folk, and the dispute over these interpretations can often be understood as the conflict of ideologies. Ideology, then, our world-views, amounts to little more than differing perspectives, and again, contain the promise to be intolerant to views which undermine them.

That clears it up a bit, but it still seems as if you find it hard to rationally distinguish between different sets of ideology. All ideology, especially in the sense you seem to be using it, is not equally rational. If that were the case, I don't see any of us having the ability to learn anything. We would be stuck in solipsism. We do learn new things, however, precisely because of the differing degrees of rationality that certain ideologies consist of. To call something an ideology shouldn't diminish its ability to be rational, and in my experience, more rational is in fact better.

Your point may have still missed me though, and if that is the case, I hope you can help me receive it.

@MMP2506,

MMP2506;164196 wrote:

That clears it up a bit, but it still seems as if you find it hard to rationally distinguish between different sets of ideology. All ideology, especially in the sense you seem to be using it, is not equally rational. If that were the case, I don't see any of us having the ability to learn anything. We would be stuck in solipsism. We do learn new things, however, precisely because of the differing degrees of rationality that certain ideologies consist of. To call something an ideology shouldn't diminish its ability to be rational, and in my experience, more rational is in fact better.

Your point may have still missed me though, and if that is the case, I hope you can help me receive it.

Thank you, MMP2506. Your post is extremely helpful, and as you rightly point out, I may have it all a bit messed up and jumbled. Okay, let's take a shot at this:

Solipsist: There are no thoughts, ideas, experiences or emotions, worldviews, and ideologies other than my own.

Qualia: Then in telling us about that, communicating your ideas, language is essentially your own private construct?

Solipsist: Yes, the language is my own. I am the source of the meaning I produce. I mean whatever I choose to mean.

Qualia: But your ideas, frames, references, understanding, language is not governed by arbitrary rules. The meaning of the words you choose, the ideas of have formulated are under public use and governance, so you cannot expect to be interpreted however you wish and so you cannot mean whatever you wish.

Solipsist: The meanings of my words, my ideas and ideologies are solely dependent on me. I act accordingly.

Qualia: But the formation, structure, communication of those beliefs call upon extrenal factors like systems, codes, institutions, and the such. Using language to express your ideas presupposes a publicly accessible language. Your ideas, worldview, ideology only make sense because you express yourself in a language that is not your own, not governed by your own meaning. You assume, as soon as you utter a word to another, that there must be speaker-independent practices already in existence to establish what you mean. But you only make sense because you are already implied within the social context. To be a real solipsist you'd have to stop using language, you'd have to literally step out of the world, to a large extent you'd have to stop thinking.

MMP2506: Okay, but it still seems as if you find it hard to rationally distinguish between different sets of ideology.

Qualia: Yes, that's right. My deep heart convictions lean to the extreme left, something of a European libertarian you might say, in the same fashion Chomsky, Bakunin have used the term. But, other then a continual dialogue of bickering, I cannot logically determine why my ideology is above that of fascism, conservatism, liberalism, or capitalism, or the banality of this consummerist world. I think Hamlet said something like, nothing is good or bad, but only what thinking makes it so. And I think Hume said something similar.

Good and bad are not out there in the world, but qualities of my ideology. In this sick mind of mine, the death of so many in wars and genocide, for example, is, strictly speaking, just a description of 'fact', an event, which could be programmed into a computer in much the same fashion as a leaf tumbling in the gutter.

But, once the reading of this fact is overtaken by my brain, this description will cause somekind of reaction. I might feel pain or anger, I might use the fact description to belittle the event, I might brush it off as irrelevant, or I might use it to up hold the corrrectness of such an act - as say a Nazi might do.

What I will try to do is justify these reactions of my heart by logic, rhetoric, and all the other methods of persuassion I have at my disposal, but apart from my own ideological callings, I can't see how I can rationally distinguish this point of view from any other.

All I end up with is involving myself in the banality of the ideological debate, you said, I said. Does this make any sense?

@qualia,

qualia;164205 wrote:

Thank you, MMP2506. Your post is extremely helpful, and as you rightly point out, I may have it all a bit messed up and jumbled. Okay, let's take a shot at this:

Solipsist: There are no thoughts, ideas, experiences or emotions, worldviews, and ideologies other than my own.

Qualia: Then in telling us about that, communicating your ideas, language is essentially your own private construct?

Solipsist: Yes, the language is my own. I am the source of the meaning I produce. I mean whatever I choose to mean.

Qualia: But your ideas, frames, references, understanding, language is not governed by arbitrary rules. The meaning of the words you choose, the ideas of have formulated are under public use and governance, so you cannot expect to be interpreted however you wish and so you cannot mean whatever you wish.

Solipsist: The meanings of my words, my ideas and ideologies are solely dependent on me. I act accordingly.

Qualia: But the formation, structure, communication of those beliefs call upon extrenal factors like systems, codes, institutions, and the such. Using language to express your ideas presupposes a publicly accessible language. Your ideas, worldview, ideology only make sense because you express yourself in a language that is not your own, not governed by your own meaning. You assume, as soon as you utter a word to another, that there must be speaker-independent practices already in existence to establish what you mean. But you only make sense because you are already implied within the social context. To be a real solipsist you'd have to stop using language, you'd have to literally step out of the world, to a large extent you'd have to stop thinking.

MMP2506: Okay, but it still seems as if you find it hard to rationally distinguish between different sets of ideology.

Qualia: Yes, that's right. My deep heart convictions lean to the extreme left, something of a European libertarian you might say, in the same fashion Chomsky, Bakunin have used the term. But, other then a continual dialogue of bickering, I cannot logically determine why my ideology is above that of fascism, or capitalism, or the banality of this consummerist world. I think Hamlet said something like, nothing is good or bad, but only what thinking makes it so. And I think Hume said something similar.

Good and bad are not out there in the world, but qualities of my ideology. In this sick mind of mine, the death of so many in wars and genocide, for example, is, strictly speaking, just a description of 'fact', an event, which could be programmed into a computer in much the same fashion as a leaf tumbling in the gutter.

But, once the reading of this fact is overtaken by my brain, this description will cause somekind of reaction. I might feel pain or anger, I might use the fact description to belittle the event, I might brush it off as irrelevant, or I might use it to up hold the corrrectness of such an act - as say a Nazi might do.

What I will try to do is justify these reactions of my heart by logic, rhetoric, and all the other methods of persuassion I have at my disposal, but apart from my own ideological callings, I can't see how I can rationally distinguish this point of view from any other.

All I end up with is involving myself in the banality of the ideological debate, you said, I said. Does this make any sense?

Yes, that all makes quite a bit of sense, and it outlines the modern interpretation of rational perfectly. What you see as rational, and I see, seem to function very differently .

To me, rationality is directly tied to its route which is ratio, in other words its relatedness. Connectivity and coherence is of utmost importance to what is rational. Just because relation is importance, don't assume that rationality is relative, because as a connective principle, is directly supersedes relativism, and reaches true objectivity.

What is most rational, is what connects the most concepts together within a certain frame of ideology. Some people's ideology is more connected and more easily expressible than others. I would call these ideologies more rational. If there are some ideologies more rational than others, I must assume that there exists an ideology, or at least a set of ideologies, that are the most rational compared to the others. What makes me think there is One most rational paradigm, is simply that it is the most rational. Remember Occam's Razor.

It has nothing to do with Good or bad; although, we often claim what is most rational is Good, even though it doesn't seem good to all involved. It usually just seems Good to those who understand the rationale behind it. If there is no rationale behind it, those who claim it to be good must in fact be irrational.

What makes a philosopher's ideology more rational than that of someone who doesn't even know what his is, is precisely its coherence. Philosophy allows you to sort out what you believe, and come to rational conclusions based on what you know, or just think you know. We can sort out our own beliefs, and determine which of those make the most sense. This allows us to compare our beliefs with others, and determine the ability to connect our beliefs with theirs to achieve a higher level of rationality. Even though I may not have reached it, my reasoning suggests that there is a most rational ideology, so I feel most inclined to continue to seek it. The scary part is, once you figure out that it must exist, you can actually feel yourself getting closer to what is ultimately unreachable. And that is a paradox I cannot explain.

@qualia,

I once had a discussion about the merits of various philosophies and ways-of-life with a person who was very learned in those kinds of subjects. He thought that the various philosophical schools were like 'economic models'. They are ways of explaining a wide range of phenomena, and each is like a world unto itself. After all, an 'economic model' is not a trivial thing: it must take into account an enormous range of data and variabilities which cannot be easily reduced or summarized. Now I feel what a 'Dasien' might say is, regardless of the merits of these models, is that they are, nevertheless, models. (No doubt I will be corrected if I am wrong.) This is not to trivialize or dismiss them, either - it is simply to draw attention to the specifics of a particular 'mode of discourse' - which is the 'mode of discourse' of modern philosophy, where we have all of these kinds of models to draw upon.

qualia;164205 wrote:

I might feel pain or anger, I might use the fact description to belittle the event, I might brush it off as irrelevant, or I might use it to up hold the corrrectness of such an act

This shows a lot of insight and willingness to take things on. I think if one is willing to take that perspective, one really is 'engaging in the philosophical quest'.

@qualia,

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking
we used when we created them." ~Albert Einstein

In the year 2000 I went to work for a corporation that had over 400 employees. That corporation had purchased the company I was working for and invited me to join them. Prior to actually working for them they provided us with an orientation. During the orientation the lady at the front of the room announced that "If you are going to work for this company you have to think outside of the box." I raised my hand and when called upon I asked, "What box?" (She had no answer to that - LOL)

There is no box to think out of - period.

Qualia; I quote your post

"Solipsist: There are no thoughts, ideas, experiences or emotions, worldviews, and ideologies other than my own."

"Qualia: Then in telling us about that, communicating your ideas, language is essentially your own private construct?"

"Solipsist: Yes, the language is my own. I am the source of the meaning I produce. I mean whatever I choose to mean."

"Qualia: But your ideas, frames, references, understanding, language is not governed by arbitrary rules. The meaning of the words you choose, the ideas of have formulated are under public use and governance, so you cannot expect to be interpreted however you wish and so you cannot mean whatever you wish."

"Solipsist: The meanings of my words, my ideas and ideologies are solely dependent on me. I act accordingly."

"Qualia: But the formation, structure, communication of those beliefs call upon extrenal factors like systems, codes, institutions, and the such. Using language to express your ideas presupposes a publicly accessible language. Your ideas, worldview, ideology only make sense because you express yourself in a language that is not your own, not governed by your own meaning. You assume, as soon as you utter a word to another, that there must be speaker-independent practices already in existence to establish what you mean. But you only make sense because you are already implied within the social context. To be a real solipsist you'd have to stop using language, you'd have to literally step out of the world, to a large extent you'd have to stop thinking."

Solipsist: No box.
Qualia: Box.
Solipsist says: "I can 'be' who I am without 'be-ing' the box."
Qualia says: "No, you can't. See, I have proof."

Try reading your post this way.

Solipsist: There are no thoughts, ideas, experiences or emotions, worldviews, and ideologies they are only 're-presentations' of minute facets of 'be-ing'.

Qualia: Then in telling us about that, communicating your ideas, language is essentially your own private construct?

Solipsist: Yes, the language is my own. Language is generated by 'be-ing'. 'Be-ing' is not created by language. I am the source of the meaning I produce.

Qualia: But your ideas, frames, references, understanding, language is not governed by arbitrary rules. The meaning of the words you choose, the ideas of have formulated are under public use and governance, so you cannot expect to be interpreted however you wish and so you cannot mean whatever you wish.

Solipsist: The meanings of my words, my ideas and ideologies are solely dependent on me. My 'meanings' come from my 'be-ing'. As an example, when I want to build something I don't go to the tool box and grab a bunch of hammers, nails, and saws and start hammering, nailing, and sawing. Before I get to "I want to build something" I have already determined what need is to be filled and I have an idea of what will fill it, I don't build just to build. Once I have determined what will fill the need, I sit down to design it. When I determine that what I have designed will fill my need I acquire the needed supplies and set out to construct the item. 'Meaning' doesn't get produced by hammers, nails, and saws. 'Meaning' is determined by 'be-ing'.

Qualia: But the formation, structure, communication of those beliefs call upon external factors like systems, codes, institutions, and the such. Using language to express your ideas presupposes a publicly accessible language. Your ideas, worldview, ideology only make sense because you express yourself in a language that is not your own, not governed by your own meaning. You assume, as soon as you utter a word to another, that there must be speaker-independent practices already in existence to establish what you mean. But you only make sense because you are already implied within the social context. To be a real solipsist you'd have to stop using language, you'd have to literally step out of the world, to a large extent you'd have to stop thinking.

Solipsist: Formation, structure, and communication of beliefs don't determine 'be-ing'. You determine who you are going to 'be'. 'You' invent ideas, worldview, and ideology. There is no thing 'out there' called 'ideas', 'worldview', 'ideology', or 'philosophy' that determine who you are. 'You' determine who you are. That's your plot of ground to work. The only choice you have is whether you are going to un-cover 'you' or if you are going to create an illusion we call the 'box' that will provide you with a 'safe' place to live(?).

Quailia: I think I see. To be a real solipsist you'd have to stop letting language use you and you'd have to literally step out of the world, to a large extent you'd have to start thinking.

Solipsist: Exactly

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]

---------- Post added 05-14-2010 at 09:48 AM ----------

qualia;164017 wrote:

***Warning*** Big loiter here!! There is some mighty brilliant posts going on here. Dasein, your last few entries have been brilliant and I love the idea of yours that in some fundamental fashion, we imply our own distancing, subtraction or missingness when we use certain linguistic pronouncements. On the otherhand, there is no self-evident or a priori reason to accept the notion that maximising be-ing as oppossed to interpreting or proving the world - whatever that ammounts to - will increase personal freedom, augment happiness, end all the terrible miseries you have mentioned, and so on. The assumption that human well-being, the ending of wars, violence and racial injustice is intrinsically linked to 'be-ing' is charged with a moralised view of humanity, for no matter how plausible or humanitarian your argument may appear, no one could tell us whether humans are made into better humans by their ability to start be-ing, or not. This position is a profession of faith, an ideology, and we must all remain a little suspicious of the ideologue, no matter how well sounding. For this reason, for our own sake as critical thinkers, I think it a little rash and fool hardy to dismiss so quickly what Reconstructo is essentially drawing our attention to.

Qualia;

I wasn't 'dismissing' anything that Reconstructo had to say, I was 'poking fun' at "I don't buy it" - lighten up.

Dasein (be-ing there)

@Reconstructo,

reconstructo;

But the emperor's not wearing any clothes!

You have brilliantly illustrated what I have been saying.

You said;
"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."

You are right. We notice our 'nakedness' and immediately 'dress our selves' in words. It is our 'lot' in life. 'Be-ing' is not covering up our nakedness by 'dressing your 'self' in words', i.e. covering up who you are by 'placing false gods before you' (representations).

I don't propose to know any answer, I do propose that we have 'tried' everything else and that hasn't worked.

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]

@Dasein,

Dasein;164304 wrote:

reconstructo;

But the emperor's not wearing any clothes!

You have brilliantly illustrated what I have been saying.

You said;
"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."

You are right. We notice our 'nakedness' and immediately 'dress our selves' in words. It is our 'lot' in life. 'Be-ing' is not covering up our nakedness by 'dressing your 'self' in words', i.e. covering up who you are by 'placing false gods before you' (representations).

I don't propose to know any answer, I do propose that we have 'tried' everything else and that hasn't worked.

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]

We can only be aware of our lack of nakedness because of the clothes that we wear. The first step to removing the clothes, is discovering they are there, but why is it necessary we remove all of them. Is it not possible we were given them on purpose? The clothes were available to us before we put them on, and they will always be there whether or not we choose to wear them. Maybe you have good reason to doubt ultimate nakedness, maybe it isn't supposed to occur.

@Deckard,

Thank you Dasein, Deckard, MMP2506, Reconstructo, qualia, prothero, and jeepers for converting my OP into a most interesting discussion. But I would now like to focus on Deckard's post, since it deals with what I feel is most important in the development of Ortega's thought beyond what he formulated during his lifetime and formed the purpose of my OP.

Deckard;163782 wrote:

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.

According to Ortega, "My Life," which is the "Radical Reality," consists of "I" and "My Circumstance." "My Circumstance," in turn consists of "facilities" and "difficulties" for "My Life" to continue, i.e., for "I" to continue "living." Now in order to deal with the facilities and difficulties that "I" encounter in "My Life," there are various approaches that "I" can take. I can attribute their occurrence to gods or God and then seek to propitiate them or it by worship, entreaties, or sacrifices. I can accept them as inevitable and resign myself to putting up with them as best I can. Or I can use reason to try to understand why these facilities and difficulties are occurring and thus take actions to increase the facilities and decrease the difficulties that occur in my circumstance. This latter approach has been favored by Western civilization starting with the Greeks.

Starting with Hesiod, we see an attempt to explain the occurrences in our circumstance by means of a single cause from which the occurrences originate. This is the arche ("beginning," "origin," or "first cause") for which Hesiod postulated "Chaos", an unlimited void considered as a divine primordial condition, form which everything else appeared. With the Greek philosophers, arche became the first principle of existing things, considered as a permanent substance or physis which is preserved in the generation of everything else. Thales postulated that this arche was water; Anaximander the apeiron, an indefinite substance; Anaximenes, air. Skipping ahead to Plato, we have the discovery of the "world" of "ideas" an realm where entities exist that are defined and unchanging, of which the occurrences or "appearances: are imperfect manifestations.

Since then, and especially beginning in the Renaissance, attempts have be made to use "ideas" or "concepts" to explain the occurrences, not only to avoid the difficulties, but also to enhance the facilities that occur in our lives. However, with this approach we have sometimes changed our circumstance in ways that were initially beneficial for our life but with unforeseen consequences that have become detrimental.

Recently, I have been talking with John Graham, the author of a three-volume study of the thought of Ortega y Gasset, who has now turned his attention to a key concept of Ortega's, that of "crisis." Ortega postulated that history, or at least Western history, can be understood as a series of periods of stability followed by periods of crisis. Stability occurs when a system of ideas becomes a set of beliefs that are accepted by a majority of society as a basis for understanding and action in their daily lives. The Greco-Roman civilization was one such period, the Medieval another, and the so-called Modern one a third. A Historical crisis occurs when the beliefs that are operative in a society come into question. Such a period occurred after the fall of Rome, during the Renaissance, and we are now in the midst of another such period that started at the beginning of the 20th century.

In my conversations with Professor Graham, I postulated that in contrast to these periods of "crisis," these periods of stability could be understood by using the concept of "sustainability." So that in my interpretation, the ideas of "crisis" and "sustainability" are intertwined to the point where I felt that every "crisis" is a "crisis of sustainability."

One interesting development that has complicated this interrelationship is what I might call the phenomenon of "sustainable crisis". Businesses have discovered that profits can be made from generating "crises" and many enterprises are springing up that involve "crisis management." For instance, former employees of Goldman Sachs have been hired by the government to "manage" the economic "crisis" that was generated by the actions of, among others, Goldman Sachs, and they "managed the crisis" by "sustaining" Goldman Sachs and other corporations via a massive bailout because they were "too big to fail," i.e., "too big not to be sustained.' And in the current focus on global warming, to give another example, corporations are finding it to be the ultimate "sustainable crisis" from which they can reap "sustained" profits.

My point here is that the notion of "sustainability" can be employed to all phenomena from the atomic to the universal and from the individual to the societal as a new paradigm. So that we can look at the occurrence of all phenomena as a process of coming into being, being sustained in being, and ceasing being, rather than something that just "is." In other words, all phenomena have a "history" and must be understood in terms of what circumstance allowed each stage of the process to occur. In this light, Ortega argues for a new type of thinking that he calls "historical reason." With regard to human life, he says that human life does not have a "nature," in the sense of an unvarying way of being, but rather a "history." And in all the recent research into the origins of the universe with the so-called "Big Bang," we are finding that "nature" also does not have such a "nature," but also is best understood as having a "history."

"Ont-ology" has been the quest for a static, unvarying "story" about the "being," or ontos that lies behind everything that "is." "Sustain-ology" on the other hand would transform this quest into an understanding of the dynamic "history" of how things come into being, are sustained in being, and then cease being.

:flowers:

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;164236 wrote:

Now I feel what a 'Dasien' might say is, regardless of the merits of these models, is that they are, nevertheless, models.

I can't help but add that a description of them as models is itself a model.

Of course, the word model is often used as if contrasted with reality, or the modelled. But "reality" so far as it is intelligible seems made of "models" --I'm not denying sensation or emotion here, but so far as we name them they are no longer just sensation or emotions/desire/pain/values but also concepts/models/essences....beings.

---------- Post added 05-14-2010 at 03:11 PM ----------

Dasein;164304 wrote:

reconstructo;

But the emperor's not wearing any clothes!

You have brilliantly illustrated what I have been saying.

You said;
"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."

You are right. We notice our 'nakedness' and immediately 'dress our selves' in words. It is our 'lot' in life. 'Be-ing' is not covering up our nakedness by 'dressing your 'self' in words', i.e. covering up who you are by 'placing false gods before you' (representations).

I don't propose to know any answer, I do propose that we have 'tried' everything else and that hasn't worked.

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]

Thanks for this intelligent response. A couple of points come to mind. The nakedness still seems to me to another metaphor, another narrative. Should we give this particular metaphor a dominant position? Actually I think we should, but minus any negative emotional associations.

Actually we probably have similar views but a different emphasis. I like the metaphor of "Being as negative one." We dress reality with a unified system of concepts, but within this system of concepts is the self-consciousness of this same system.... an awareness that language is the intelligible structure of "reality." (Language as the House of Being.)

This linguistic self-consciousness motivates us to put all of our abstractions in quotes: would you agree? (Except we have to use these contingent words, because we are always already immersed, and we must climb up errors/superstitions/contingencies not knowing until the "end" how contingent they are...)

I like the notion of a negative ontology, which is just an awareness that our distinctions, the beings we disclose with/by language, are contingent. There is always another way to slice it, name, disclose it.

I don't know know if you like Kojeve, but he drives the point home that being is revealed by discourse. I think you agree with this? When discourse finally reveals to itself its own role as the revealer, it moves from "Understanding" to "Reason." (From transcedental idealism to absolute idealism/realism <--absoluteness kills the distinction.)

Of course this is poetic and optimistic, still dressing. The idea that please me is this: at some point a philosophy is perhaps achievable where constructive/convincing negations can no longer be found against it. (I know this is a risky assertion.)

But let me wrap up by saying that I think the philosopher is a process of self-consciousness, until it is self-consciously "self"-"consciousness." I put those words in quote because distinctions like "consciousness" and the "self" are recognized as founded upon contingent and questionable dualities which are more useful than logically/dialectically "justified." Forgive my longwindedness, I just think it's a great subject. Also, as much as I like my opinions (some of them), I recognize them as changeable.

respectfully,
z

---------- Post added 05-14-2010 at 03:23 PM ----------

MMP2506;164305 wrote:

We can only be aware of our lack of nakedness because of the clothes that we wear.

Well said. I feel that this is where human-time (not just physics time) comes in. We have to evolve a consciousness of contingency within the contingent. "Eternity is engendered within time." And one might argue that Eternity is just a pretty picture. Smile

---------- Post added 05-14-2010 at 03:27 PM ----------

longknowledge;164314 wrote:

"Ont-ology" has been the quest for a static, unvarying "story" about the "being," or ontos that lies behind everything that "is." "Sustain-ology" on the other hand would transform this quest into an understanding of the dynamic "history" of how things come into being, are sustained in being, and then cease being.
:flowers:

I like this. What you call Sustain-ology is close to what I playfully call "nontology." At least it seems so to me.

@Reconstructo,

[QUOTE=Reconstructo;164324] We dress reality with a unified system of concepts, but within this system of concepts is the self-consciousness of this same system.... an awareness that language is the intelligible structure of "reality." (Language as the House of Being.)[/QUOTE]

reconstructo;

You speak of 'reality' as if reality exists and then you create something called "a unified system of concepts". There is no "unified system of concepts". We have spent close to 3000 years trying to come up with one so we can 'prove' 'be-ing' and capture it in a "unified system of concepts". This is the 'dressing our selves' in words I was referring to and it ain't never gonna work!!

Then you go on to say "but within this system of concepts is the self-consciousness of this same system.... an awareness that language is the intelligible structure of "reality.

What you refer to by using 'self-consciousness' is 'be-ing'.

Congratulations! You have just 're-cognized' who you are and you're skittering around like a drop of water on a hot skillet trying to cover it back up.

The good news is that if you hadn't 're-cognized' who you are you wouldn't be skittering. Every time you come face-to-face with who you are you will skitter until one day you will notice that you had the desire to skitter but you didn't. After awhile life for you will look like this: 'be-ing', desire to skitter, didn't and then it will look like 'be-ing', didn't skitter, 'be-ing', didn't skitter, and everyone around you will wonder what you know that they don't know.

One last thing: 'Be-ing is the house of language' it's not the other way around.

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]

@Dasein,

Dasein;164358 wrote:

reconstructo;

You speak of 'reality' as if reality exists and then you create something called "a unified system of concepts". There is no "unified system of concepts". We have spent close to 3000 years trying to come up with one so we can 'prove' 'be-ing' and capture it in a "unified system of concepts". This is the 'dressing our selves' in words I was referring to and it ain't never gonna work!!

But, Dasein, that's all dressing as well, and your apparent refutation is not any sort of process but the same negative ontology I was already arguing for. We simply have to use words. "If " "you" "want" "I" "can" "put" "them" "all" "in" "quotes" but at what point are we playing the more-post-modern-than-thou game? "Joe" is so post-post-post-post-modern that he burned off his fingerprints and snorts his ground up dictionary.

What sort of work do you want it to do? I'm a happy man, personally. I love philosophy. It works for me, if not for others. And our system of concepts is unified, in my opinion, or we couldn't have this conversation. Heidegger uses a singular word like Being for a reason, because unification is primary, and perhaps the one thing that doesn't change. Beings are unities. The rest is contingent. I venture that sort of thought.

If I felt like it, I could trot out my ultra-skeptical "truth is an army of metaphors" role, but it's not my favorite. Ultimately relationships and societies exist and are built on common values, shared ways of "disclosing beings. " There are happy human beings on planet Earth. I don't think it requires a reading of Heidegger or any other philosopher to achieve this, even I find philosophy an enrichment to life. And happiness is for me the obvious goal. We can grind up the word as much as you life. Proof is just persuasion, in my book. You can share, but never prove even that "1 + 1 = 2" to those who don't want to be persuaded. I'm not aiming this at you. Just explaining my general perspective. I don't feel trapped, naked, etc. Life is grand. Despite all the objections one could raise. Smile

---------- Post added 05-14-2010 at 04:33 PM ----------

Dasein;164358 wrote:

Congratulations! You have just 're-cognized' who you are and you're skittering around like a drop of water on a hot skillet trying to cover it back up.

Seriously, this is just bad manners. I've been guilty of this sort of tone myself before, so I try not to be offended. Perhaps you don't realize how insulting this tone is.

regards,
z

---------- Post added 05-14-2010 at 04:34 PM ----------

Dasein;164358 wrote:

One last thing: 'Be-ing is the house of language' it's not the other way around.

Of course! Oops.

@longknowledge,

reconstructo;

"Seriously, this is just bad manners. I've been guilty of this sort of tone myself before, so I try not to be offended. Perhaps you don't realize how insulting this tone is."

Think about it. I really don't have the ability to insult you, do I? I mean, you can get insulted if that's what you want to do, right?

If you expect me to "walk on eggshells" because you get insulted, I decline your request.

Dasein (be-ing there)

@Dasein,

Dasein;164380 wrote:

reconstructo;

"Seriously, this is just bad manners. I've been guilty of this sort of tone myself before, so I try not to be offended. Perhaps you don't realize how insulting this tone is."

Think about it. I really don't have the ability to insult you, do I? I mean, you can get insulted if that's what you want to do, right?

If you expect me to "walk on eggshells" because you get insulted, I decline your request.

Dasein (be-ing there)

You strike me as a person with a sort of faith in faithlessness who poses as some sort of superior being washed in the blood of a slightly more modern lamb. I don't buy it. It embarrasses me. Read your favorite book 5000 times. I prefer The Sneeches by Dr. Seuss. (You could learn from that story.) Heidegger is just another poet.

Jesus-freaks are sophisticated these days. They pose as great doubters. Adopt the oh-so-negative-theology of Nazis. They live in the same sort of bubble, confuse bad manners with "authenticity." You are in on the secret, right? And it's not you but everyone else who is lying to themselves? Right? But You are one of the pure, the true, the elite. I've heard this story before. I'm going to leave you alone with your immeasurable superiority to the mere sheep who only pretend to be happy. (Meanwhile life goes on all around you....)

@Reconstructo,

reconstructo;

"A conclusion is that place where human beings don't want to think any more." - Stephen Wright

Dasein (be-ing there)

Philosophy Forum
» MetaPhilosophy
» On Being in Heidegger and Aristotle
» Page 3

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

On Being in Heidegger and Aristotle

Quick Links

My Account

able2know