On Being in Heidegger and Aristotle

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;166251 wrote:

Well, again, another Buddhist concept is useful here, which is that the teaching itself (i.e. Buddha's teaching) is a raft which carries you 'across the river' but has no further use.

This is not to say that the raft is not useful. After all, there is an enormous canonical collection of texts and commentaries, and an ever-proliferating collection of popular and scholarly books on same. They communicate and inform, they are not just empty words. But their whole purpose is to move you beyond the realm of discourse. (If you think about it, this is another view of the 'two truths' idea that was touched on the other day. The teaching itself is in the domain of conventional truth. The destination is in the domain of ultimate truth.)

One of the problems that I see with the European philosophical tradition, especially Hegel, is that it lacked this awareness of the use and limits of language. I suppose this is what Wittgenstein really picked up on with his idea of 'words as ladders'.

I might only be using a few words here, but don't underestimate the scope of this idea, or its implications. It is actually a very difficult idea to grasp correctly and it is very easy to grasp it incorrectly.

I decided to delete this post as all and all unnecessary :Glasses:

@longknowledge,

It is just an observation about the limits of thinking, that's all.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;166241 wrote:

It's my theory that human thought is largely metaphorical. .

That is not surprising since you seem to think that everything is "largely metaphorical", so why not human thought? But if it is largely metaphorical, what is the smaller part?

@Reconstructo,

[QUOTE=Reconstructo;166241]Is it like this? That there IS something that cannot be said, but the reason this something cannot be said because it is simply not conceptual. I personally can't conceive of thinking/conceptualization apart of language, but that should tell you how I am using the word "thinking" in this sentence.

It's my theory that human thought is largely metaphorical. But a word like "being" is a move away from any determinate associated image. The word "being" is the skeleton of other more determinate words, words that refer to particular beings. Words like "cat, sausage, cloud" are words with flesh, but perhaps all such "fleshy" words have the same core or skeleton --"being." I really think that the empty set of mathematics is somehow related here.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=jeeprs;166251]Well, again, another Buddhist concept is useful here, which is that the teaching itself (i.e. Buddha's teaching) is a raft which carries you 'across the river' but has no further use.

This is not to say that the raft is not useful. After all, there is an enormous canonical collection of texts and commentaries, and an ever-proliferating collection of popular and scholarly books on same. They communicate and inform, they are not just empty words. But their whole purpose is to move you beyond the realm of discourse. (If you think about it, this is another view of the 'two truths' idea that was touched on the other day. The teaching itself is in the domain of conventional truth. The destination is in the domain of ultimate truth.)

One of the problems that I see with the European philosophical tradition, especially Hegel, is that it lacked this awareness of the use and limits of language. I suppose this is what Wittgenstein really picked up on with his idea of 'words as ladders'.

I might only be using a few words here, but don't underestimate the scope of this idea, or its implications. It is actually a very difficult idea to grasp correctly and it is very easy to grasp it incorrectly.[/QUOTE]

Reconstructo& Jeeprs;

Together you have 'nailed it'.

Reconstructo; When you say, "That there IS something that cannot be said, but the reason this something cannot be said because it is simply not conceptual.", you are pointing to what Jeeprs said when he said "It is actually a very difficult idea to grasp correctly and it is very easy to grasp it incorrectly."

I say it is extremely difficult to 'un-grasp' what we already 'assume' we know especially while living in a world that assumes it knows. The 'condition' doesn't give you any room to 'be' who you are.

Reconstructo; Notice how you use the word 'being' to point to what you are saying. Heidegger purposefully re-wrote this as 'be-ing' to get you to stop thinking of your 'self' as a thing that can be defined with a combination of characteristics. Also notice how you said "being" is the skeleton of other more determinate words".

What you are demonstrating is the "very slippery slope" we call 'life'. You designate 'be-ing' as a thing called 'being' and then you add "the skeleton of other more determinate words" to 'hopefully' get what you're pointing to across to another human, 'be-ing'.

We are addressing an extremely powerful phenomenon here that is referred to in religion as the Tower of Babel.

I am 'be-ing', Reconstructo is 'be-ing', Jeeprs is 'be-ing', and all of the humans inhabiting the earth are 'be-ing'. At the same time we are trying to prove 'be-ing' to each other by using a "combination of characteristics" (concepts) as evidence, not noticing that when you use concepts to represent who you are you remove 'you' from consideration, hence we all end up chasing each other around the Tower of Babel.

Jeeprs said; Well, again, another Buddhist concept is useful here, which is that the teaching itself (i.e. Buddha's teaching) is a raft which carries you 'across the river' but has no further use.

This is not to say that the raft is not useful. After all, there is an enormous canonical collection of texts and commentaries, and an ever-proliferating collection of popular and scholarly books on same. They communicate and inform, they are not just empty words. But their whole purpose is to move you beyond the realm of discourse."

Jeeprs contribution is 'spot on' again. However you should use what he said as a clue, nothing more. The 'raft' is a "combination of characteristics" you (and Buddha) use to represent 'be-ing' as you 'reflect' on who you are, there is no 'raft'.

The 'river' is a metaphor (concept) for a journey 'across' something. This 'journey' is based on a starting point (past), an ending point (future), and the 'crossing' (present). There is only 'now', no past, present, or future. There is no 'journey'.

When you read the "enormous canonical collection of texts and commentaries, and an ever-proliferating collection of popular and scholarly books on same" you are having a "discourse' with the author as you 'reflect' on who you are.

The purpose of the "canonical collection" and the "popular and scholarly books" is to provide you with the 'discourse' to "move you beyond the realm of discourse." (Tower of Babel?)

There is no 'reflection', no 'raft', no 'journey', and no 'discourse'.

There is only you 'be-ing'.

Gee! You are you. (GURU)

[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 (be-ing there)

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;166285 wrote:

It is just an observation about the limits of thinking, that's all.

I respect that. I've lately decided to keep it simpler.

@Dasein,

Dasein;166476 wrote:

Reconstructo& Jeeprs;

Together you have 'nailed it'.

Reconstructo; When you say, "That there IS something that cannot be said, but the reason this something cannot be said because it is simply not conceptual.", you are pointing to what Jeeprs said when he said "It is actually a very difficult idea to grasp correctly and it is very easy to grasp it incorrectly."

I say it is extremely difficult to 'un-grasp' what we already 'assume' we know especially while living in a world that assumes it knows. The 'condition' doesn't give you any room to 'be' who you are.

You know I wanted to come back to this thread, because I felt I was rude to you in my last post to you. I'm glad to see how gracious this post of yours is. I thought about your "nakedness" comment, and realized in retrospect that you probably meant the "ineffable" that cannot be said. Sorry that I interpreted it as more negative than it was. Allow me to sincerely complement you on this. Perhaps this is what you were trying to say all along, and it is indeed quite an important "concept" (a concept that points away from concept?)

Yes, the "self" is made of such concepts, or at least we often think it is. And yet the living immersed non-conceptual self is made of what? The ineffable aspect of being-under-erasure. And indeed, it's hard to talk about, because all talking refers to more talking. Only a little bit of talking here and there refers away from talking, because we love the talk that justifies our power-play, that is our power play.

What do you make of time? Hegel's version of time is undeniably sublime. Time as a byproduct of concept. But I guess without knowing that Heidegger is talking perhaps more of the continuity of sensual/emotional experience? Or not? I have read more second hand sources than Heidegger himself, because of a certain impatience. Hell, even the typeset and translation style of the Being and Time available to me mattered to me. The sensual element of books in significant. And indeed translation can make the difference between reading and not reading a book. I read a good translation of the Birth of Tragedy once and then bumped into an atrocious translation. And I knew that I would never have "gotten it" from the bad translation, had I been exposed to that one first.

I think Rorty missed something about both Heidegger and Wittgenstein. Now, Rorty is a brilliant guy, but we all make mistakes. Again, sorry about the rudeness in my last post. I was grumpy that day.

---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 12:30 AM ----------

Dasein;166476 wrote:

Jeeprs said; Well, again, another Buddhist concept is useful here, which is that the teaching itself (i.e. Buddha's teaching) is a raft which carries you 'across the river' but has no further use.

This is not to say that the raft is not useful. After all, there is an enormous canonical collection of texts and commentaries, and an ever-proliferating collection of popular and scholarly books on same. They communicate and inform, they are not just empty words. But their whole purpose is to move you beyond the realm of discourse."

Jeeprs contribution is 'spot on' again. However you should use what he said as a clue, nothing more. The 'raft' is a "combination of characteristics" you (and Buddha) use to represent 'be-ing' as you 'reflect' on who you are, there is no 'raft'.

The 'river' is a metaphor (concept) for a journey 'across' something. This 'journey' is based on a starting point (past), an ending point (future), and the 'crossing' (present). There is only 'now', no past, present, or future. There is no 'journey'.

Do you like Wittgenstein's TLP? How do you relate that to Heidegger? He uses the disposable ladder metaphor to great effect.
As far as there being only now, this is also in Kojeve. But in a different light. The past and the future are concept that exist in the present which is spatial. Where all temporarily is conceptual. Of course I see now that one can focus on the non-conceptual as the Being of being. Is that how you see it? I would still argue that another valid answer to this question is unity. And this would tie into Aristotle's essence, I think. One could say that life is a collision of the ineffable continuous and the conceptual discrete. Of course we live this unity. And it must be a unity for thought, right? Because thinking is unification. I suppose we could call it a dualism, but the term dualism is already a unification. Smile

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;

There are just a couple of 'goodies' to address from your last post.

You should read my blog on time at:
[URL="http://www.philosophyforum.com/blogs/dasein/982-time.html"]http://www.philosophyforum.com/blogs/dasein/982-time.html[/URL]

You never have to apologize for being 'grumpy' because that is when you are doing your best work.

I have found that when I am being 'grumpy' it's because 'I' am 're-thinking' conclusions that I have come to, conclusions I am already comfortable with. I get 'grumpy' because when 'I' re-think those conclusions' I know that everything is about to change. (A conclusion is that place where humans get tired of thinking.)

If this is what is happening for you then the 'grumpy' phase signals that you have already done all of the work of re-thinking your conclusions. All that's left to do is to admit you were wrong and act consistent with the new thinking (change). We get 'grumpy' because we don't like being wrong and the only time we like change is when we're standing in front of a vending machine.

Two things you said:
"Yes, the "self" is made of such concepts, or at least we often think it is."
"I would still argue that another valid answer to this question is unity."

It's actually the other way around. Metaphorically speaking 'be-ing' is the unity in the center of the storm. This 'unity' in the center of the storm is the source of the concepts. Instead of 'be-ing' the calm center, we reach into the 220+ mph winds and grab a combination of characteristics, come to a conclusion (concept) and stop thinking (be-ing). The 'things' flying around in the 220+ mph winds are the only 'things' that connect us to mother earth (definability) and these 'things' we grab on to are the only source of comfort and certainty we have.

There is no comfort and certainty; there is only you, 'be-ing'. You will never discover who you are (the eye of the storm) by reaching for the 'concepts'.

[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 (be-ing there)

@Dasein,

I am starting to read "Being & Time" by Martin Heidegger for the 73rd time. I am amazed that it's taken 72 readings to get to the point of seeing what I have been missing.

The following comes from Section 10 of "Being & Time". I thought you would find it very interesting.

Heidegger says;
"After a theme for investigation has been initially outlined in positive terms, it is always important to show what is to be ruled out, although it can easily become fruitless to discuss what is not going to happen. We must show that those investigations and formulations of the question which have been aimed at Dasein heretofore, have missed the real philosophical problem, and that as long as they persist in missing it, they have no right to claim that they can accomplish that for which they are basically striving. In distinguishing the existential analytic from anthropology, psychology, and biology, we shall confine ourselves to what is in principle the ontological question. Our distinctions will necessarily be inadequate from the standpoint of 'scientific theory' simply because the scientific structure of the above-mentioned disciplines is today thoroughly questionable and needs to be attacked in new ways which must have their source in ontological problematics."

What he is saying is that the traditional way of addressing 'be-ing' (philosophy) is bankrupt and that it is up to you and I to 'formulate' the questions that address 'be-ing'.

Dasein (be-ing there)

@Dasein,

Dasein;168572 wrote:

Two things you said:
"Yes, the "self" is made of such concepts, or at least we often think it is."
"I would still argue that another valid answer to this question is unity."

It's actually the other way around. Metaphorically speaking 'be-ing' is the unity in the center of the storm. This 'unity' in the center of the storm is the source of the concepts. Instead of 'be-ing' the calm center, we reach into the 220+ mph winds and grab a combination of characteristics, come to a conclusion (concept) and stop thinking (be-ing). The 'things' flying around in the 220+ mph winds are the only 'things' that connect us to mother earth (definability) and these 'things' we grab on to are the only source of comfort and certainty we have.

There is no comfort and certainty; there is only you, 'be-ing'. You will never discover who you are (the eye of the storm) by reaching for the 'concepts'.

Thanks for your answer, Dasein. I feel that you may be misunderstanding my suggestion/idea. For instance, when you say that "be-ing" is the unity, you are using the unity concept, right? Now it's secondary to our primary discussion, but it ties into my interest in the foundations of mathematics. beings are unities. Do we agree on that? One way to describe the Being of beings (and this is treating the question out of its original context) is to point toward qualia/sensation/emotion/"the ineffable." That would be to point at what our concepts attempt to unify but fail to replace.

Another valid response, in my opinion, deals with the conceptual aspect of being, and this would be something like Aristotle's "accident and essence." In my view, essences are conceptual unites. All beings are essences conceptually speaking,and therefore conceptually the Being of these beings is unity. But we are talking about unity as in the number 1, which I think is built in to our human intuition. I think we look around and our "mind" breaks the visual scene into objects/pieces/concepts/unities.

I will agree that these concepts are contingent, changeable, etc. And I will grant priority to the ineffable sensual-emotional aspect of Being. Still, we seem to have concepts on one hand, and the ineffable on the other. The ineffable is what we are naked to, one might say. The concept element is what we make our persona from, and is also the intelligible structure of the world/reality, etc.

I will now read your blog. Smile

@Reconstructo,

reconstucto;

The only problem I have with what you're saying is that you're trying to fit 'be-ing' into the concepts you're using. It doesn't happen that way.

The concepts come from the unity of you 'be-ing'. Unity is a 'combination of characteristics' used to 'point to' the experience you have of 'be-ing'.

The litmus test is that when you and I agree on 'be-ing' we won't need to 'compare' 'concepts'. We will automatically know what the other is talking about.

That's the only way 'life' works.

Dasein (be-ing there)

@Dasein,

Dasein;169195 wrote:

reconstucto;

The only problem I have with what you're saying is that you're trying to fit 'be-ing' into the concepts you're using. It doesn't happen that way.

The concepts come from the unity of you 'be-ing'. Unity is a 'combination of characteristics' used to 'point to' the experience you have of 'be-ing'.

The litmus test is that when you and I agree on 'be-ing' we won't need to 'compare' 'concepts'. We will automatically know what the other is talking about.

That's the only way 'life' works.

Dasein (be-ing there)

I honestly think it's just our different interests. I think I know what you mean when you use the word be-ing, but I'm also quite interested in logic, mathematics, and linguistic philosophy. So the Aristotle view is also quite important to me. Like I said, my second Aristotle influenced answer to the question is an answer out of context. Let's drop the word being. Let's just use things. What do things have in common? What is the thingness of things? That's where unity comes in. Consider our numbers. Or our abstractions. That's the angle I'm looking at as far as unity goes. I think I see what you mean by the other unity, as well.

@Dasein,

Dasein;169195 wrote:

Dasein (be-ing there)

Where is "there"?

:flowers:

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;

Obviously not where you are.

Dasein (be-ng there)

@Dasein,

Dasein;97884 wrote:

Humans have the capacity to "show up," to be present, but they don't have the ability because their "false god" is the "Subject-Object" mis(sed)-representation of life. The "subject-object" is only a representation, a semblance, IT IS NOT LIFE! You can spend a lifetime dredging up mountains of evidence to substantiate the existence of the "subject-object" relationship and the people around you can do the same thing and the "subject-object" will still only be a semblance, a real semblance but still a semblance.

I very much relate to and agree with this paragraph. I might say that the semblance is still part of life, but that's a side point. All concept is semblance, it seems to me, including these concepts that assert such a thing. Smile

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;170051 wrote:

I very much relate to and agree with this paragraph. I might say that the semblance is still part of life, but that's a side point. All concept is semblance, it seems to me, including these concepts that assert such a thing.

reconstructo;

The only way we 'come-upon' our 'be-ing' is by first 'knowing' that we are 'be-ing' and that 'be-ing' is important to us and then, by 'dismantling' those things that have nothing to do with 'be-ing'. This is how we 'un-cover' 'be-ing'. There will come a 'point' 'in time' that you will reach 'critical mass' and what you will dismantle after that 'point' won't be the same as before.

Said in an other way; be what you know and not what you can prove.

[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 (be-ing there)

@Dasein,

Dasein;170058 wrote:

reconstructo;

The only way we 'come-upon' our 'be-ing' is by first 'knowing' that we are 'be-ing' and that 'be-ing' is important to us and then, by 'dismantling' those things that have nothing to do with 'be-ing'. This is how we 'un-cover' 'be-ing'. There will come a 'point' 'in time' that you will reach 'critical mass' and what you will dismantle after that 'point' won't be the same as before.

Said in an other way; be what you know and not what you can prove.

[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 (be-ing there)

Yessir, I relate to all of this. What is proof? Proof is persuasion. As far as critical mass, hmmm, I might be there already. But then who knows? We must evaluate one another through this medium of concept. I have to interpret you from these shared fragments, and you me in the same way.

I don't know if this applies to you, for the above mentioned reasons. But I sometimes feel that my questions concerning language/math/concept are perceived as problems or as horseflies on my back. I see them as adventures, as questions that break the crust of the mind. As something joyful. Concepts are toys. But this is only one possible metaphor. And not some definitive trans-temporal statement.

Let's say that Joe is aware of something, and wants to share it. There are many ways to do this. I feel a certain liberation from certain forms, but how does one express this? One must use the forms against themselves. I think linguistic-logical investigations are justified by such results. Point out cracks in the wall, to speak (as always?) metaphorically. Of course I don't want to stop looking where others are pointing, because they may have seen something I still haven't. Seen that a wall was false, illusory, that I still take for real.

There's always a leap of faith in communication. Faith in one's self and faith in the other, that one's words are sane and that the other can understand and benefit from them...excepting those times when we intend cruelty, wage rhetorical war....

Anyway, I've enjoyed your posts, sir... Smile

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;

Talk about a 'leap of faith'.

There is no "one's self and the other", that's exactly why there is a communication problem. How's that for "breaking the crust of the mind".

BTW - nobody has been able to prove that something called 'mind' exists.

Possibility is much more powerful than actuality.

Dasein (be-ing there)

@Dasein,

Dasein;170109 wrote:

Reconstructo;

Talk about a 'leap of faith'.

There is no "one's self and the other", that's exactly why there is a communication problem. How's that for "breaking the crust of the mind".

BTW - nobody has been able to prove that something called 'mind' exists.

Possibility is much more powerful than actuality.

Dasein (be-ing there)

I know, man. All these words are what? But seeing how one does ultimately want to communicate at times, we've got to use them, eh?
The concept isn't all. I can agree with you there quite a bit.

And yes, as I've been arguing lately, "mind" is an abstraction. Indeed indeed. But this is Hegel too, really, don't you think?

I say that a better more convincing distinction than mind/matter is that between discrete and continuous or concept and sensation/feeling. But we experience the fusion of these for the most part. And yes all these distinctions are contingent. But so are all of ours, as soon as we talk. Still, we find ourselves immersed in this concept (and concept is what? a concept...round and round the language game goes), trading symbols. Smile

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo:

You said; "And yes, as I've been arguing lately, "mind" is an abstraction. Indeed indeed. But this is Hegel too, really, don't you think?"

It's not Hegel, it's you. Go back and read my posts. I don't think you will ever see me using 'mind' to describe 'be-ing'. That's what you need to dismantle. There is no mind and there is no Hegel. There is only you, 'be-ing'.

Now that's a leap of faith!!

Dasein (be-ing there)

@Dasein,

Dasein;170116 wrote:

Reconstructo:

You said; "And yes, as I've been arguing lately, "mind" is an abstraction. Indeed indeed. But this is Hegel too, really, don't you think?"

It's not Hegel, it's you. Go back and read my posts. I don't think you will ever see me using 'mind' to describe 'be-ing'. That's what you need to dismantle. There is no mind and there is no Hegel. There is only you, 'be-ing'.

Now that's a leap of faith!!

Dasein (be-ing there)

I know that, man. Please don't mistake me for something I'm not. There is and there isn't any mind, Hegel, or hamburgers. I get it. I assure you. All is me. There is no me. There's not even any is. The way that can be told is not the true way, etc. etc. And of course there's also not any "be-ing."
But these sentences are as false as they are true. Words must bridge the gulf, especially in such a disembodied form. Of course you have written some great posts, so you are good at, D.
For real, man. I get it. There is no dismantling. There is no "there is no." Or as No-guy said "Ain't ain't" But surely you'll agree that one talks at times in the usual worldly way. And then one could argue that no one needs to dismantle anything, for there is nothing to be dismantled. But we are getting into territory that sounds mystical and potentially experienced as either absurd or condescending by other humans.
So there is something to be said for a more modest approach, that cannot be mistaken as condescending. After all, how many New Agers etc. are out there using words like "dismantle." And obviously you are not in their camp and neither am I. So that's why I have a certain aversion to any tone that talks at rather than to the other, or seems to. For all you know, I am a computer program, designed by an elf from Mars, and yet you tell me what I need to dismantle. See what I mean? Even if your heart is gold in this matter, your motive could be mistaken for silver or bronze....:flowers:

Philosophy Forum

On Being in Heidegger and Aristotle

Quick Links

My Account

able2know