Heidegger

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
Do you want to start a thread about it? If it's an interesting question we could look at it
 

thirdform

Well-known member
Do you want to start a thread about it? If it's an interesting question we could look at it
I thought there was one? middle class self-loathing or something like that.

Bump it if you like, i'm sorting out this youtube video.
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
Read that for school when I was 16 but I got a U for that course.
 

DLaurent

Well-known member
I've always felt him easiest to understand in diagram form, if you google Heidegger diagram it throws up a lot of interesting image results. He disagreed with Descartes whos arguments I believe can be traced back to Vico (one for the the Joyce fans on here) who basically posited our understanding of the world is based on our tools for understanding.
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
With more information and less time than ever thinkers get turned into trading cards. There's a social need to know about everything but no time to learn anything. It all becomes a question of knowing which names are names to drop at any given time. Keeping up with the trend-currents.

You can see the same effect in music. 30 years ago you were hip if you'd heard of Can and Lee Perry. Now those names are mainstream and anybody into music would claim to be a fan of things which were vanishingly obscure in the '90s but because of time constraints and the nature of consciousness and experience in the digital age, actual engagement has become almost impossible. The surface area is vastly expanded while, inevitably, depth is reduced to the thinnest possible veneer.
"His most famous riff, perhaps, was about knowledge. Not knowledge of anything in particular; just knowledge in and of itself. Who was the last person, he would ask, to enjoy a full command of the intellectual activity of their day? The last individual, I mean? It was, he'd answer, Leibniz. He was on top of it all: physics and chemistry, geology, philosophy, maths, engineering, medicine, theology, aesthetics. Politics too. I mean, the guy was on it. Like some universal joint in the giant Rubik's Cube of culture, he could bring it all together, make the arts and sciences dance to the same tune. He died three hundred years ago. Since Leibniz's time (Peyman would go on), the disciplines have separated out again. They're now on totally different pages: each in its own stall, shut off from all the others. Our own era, perhaps more than any other, seems to call out for a single intellect, a universal joint to bring them all together once again - seems to demand, in other words, a Leibniz. Yet there will be no Leibniz 2.0. What there will be is an endless set of migrations: knowledge-parcels travelling from one field to another, and mutating in the process. No one individual will conduct this operation; it will be performed collectively, with input from practitioners of a range of crafts, possessors of a range of expertise. Migration, mutation and what I (Peyman affirmed) call "supercession": the ability of each and every practice to surpass itself, break its own boundaries, even to the point of sacrificing its own terms and tenets in the breaching; and, in the no-man's land between its territory and the next, the blank stretches of the map, those interstitial zones where light, bending and kinking round impossible topographies, produces mirages, fata morganas, apparitions, spectres, to combine in new, fantastic and explosive ways. That, he'd say, is the future of knowledge."
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
everywhere I watch i see edgy kids, mostly white, totally absorbed in a Yankee stream of pompous culture, recycling elements ant texts completely uproot from the environment and the time where they may have some meaning, trying to decontextualize and reterritorialize them in a new empty elitism, some compressed culture where quantity is the utmost sign of excellence. I studied philosophy and stuff for more than 10 years, into academy and outside, in 3 different countries (sorry to say: Europe, where this stuff has sense) to understand that: what you believe to think, as a thinker, it's just the way you make money. If philosophy is not a well payed profession, it is just a mind trouble, a dream, a salad of words. Because it is all about words, and verba volant. Philosophy is just words and words are just codes. There is no linguistic meta-language, and if you meditate enough, you see ut has always been really stupid to think it was possible. You loved Nietzsche: he knew that and he needed less readings to see it. With words you can win an election, even a war, or subjugate millions, but you can't understand anything. Michelstaedter reached the same conclusion. After more than a century we still pretend. Evola? Zizek? Why don't just read poetry? why cumulate books, names, words? you can build a world with 3 books and to destroy it you barely need to read. If you really need knowledge to act, to work, to live, you'll see that philosophy offers almost none, and somehow it makes harder to gain new ones. Of course, if you're some elite trying to enforce the status quo, no discourse is better than an endless and smokey one. Philosophy, today, is like religion, but less serious, less effective.
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
Don't gimme none of that philosophy jive man, I got street knowledge
 

vimothy

yurp
"Famously, Heidegger writes of Dasein as Being-in-the-world. In effect, then, the notion of Being-in-the-world provides us with a reinterpretation of the activity of existing (Dreyfus 1990, 40), where existence is given the narrow reading (ek-sistence) identified earlier. Understood as a unitary phenomenon (as opposed to a contingent, additive, tripartite combination of Being, in-ness, and the world), Being-in-the-world is an essential characteristic of Dasein. As Heidegger explains:

Being-in is not a ‘property’ which Dasein sometimes has and sometimes does not have, and without which it could be just as well as it could be with it. It is not the case that man ‘is’ and then has, by way of an extra, a relationship-of-Being towards the ‘world’—a world with which he provides himself occasionally. Dasein is never ‘proximally’ an entity which is, so to speak, free from Being-in, but which sometimes has the inclination to take up a ‘relationship’ towards the world. Taking up relationships towards the world is possible only because Dasein, as Being-in-the-world, is as it is. This state of Being does not arise just because some entity is present-at-hand outside of Dasein and meets up with it. Such an entity can ‘meet up with’ Dasein only in so far as it can, of its own accord, show itself within a world. (Being and Time 12: 84)
"As this passage makes clear, the Being-in dimension of Being-in-the-world cannot be thought of as a merely spatial relation in some sense that might be determined by a GPS device, since Dasein is never just present-at-hand within the world in the way demanded by that sort of spatial in-ness. Heidegger sometimes uses the term dwelling to capture the distinctive manner in which Dasein is in the world. To dwell in a house is not merely to be inside it spatially in the sense just canvassed. Rather, it is to belong there, to have a familiar place there. It is in this sense that Dasein is (essentially) in the world."

 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
So dasein deploys the world in which it is? Or, in any case, the world only exists as some function of dasein? And the world isn't just a context that can exist with or without the text provided by being-in, but rather a context that is constitutive of the text?
 

vimothy

yurp
"Being-in is not a ‘property’ which Dasein sometimes has and sometimes does not have, and without which it could be just as well as it could be with it. It is not the case that man ‘is’ and then has, by way of an extra, a relationship-of-Being towards the ‘world’—a world with which he provides himself occasionally."
 

WashYourHands

Well-known member
Anyone encountered the musings of anthropologist Tim Ingold? He came up with the 'dwelling perspective'. Being is focused on immediate tasks within a broader task-scape, where learning as dwelling develops (see Heidegger's Building Dwelling Thinking).


Highly recommended read

 

WashYourHands

Well-known member
Ok. I don’t agree with the entirety of it, the word dwelling grates for instance, but it’s a solid segue.

Imagine your typical working day. The morning routine is a good one. Wake, shit shower and shave. Breakfast. Coffee. This can vary daily. Say I like scrambled eggs. Deconstruct the tasks. I’m building my day, thinking (sometimes on autopilot, mostly consciously) about each in slightly different ways. The itinerary of school runs, negotiating traffic. Depending on clients, I could be working from home (wootwoot). Let’s stop there and take stock.

My perception of my surroundings is phenomenological - sensory engagement in the world. Now transplant that worldview over to the bit in the woops thread about you setting up a coffee stall. You’re engaging in Ingold’s ‘taskscape’. All the individual steps. The feeling of a mini marquee’s fabric in your hands as you build the site itself. Making a temporary structure and its contents secure. Setting out ingredients, what goes where, checking your watch, doodling online when the bulk of it’s done etc. The architecture of the stall allows for verbal interactions with customers, but there’s also a boundary line which customer’s know they shouldn’t transgress. The phenomenology of the self is situated in the world through building-dwelling-thinking here. It situates you in a city landscape, with all its routes, sounds and behavioural nuances, but you can roll that out to rural and wild landscapes too.

Again, something McF misses when interpreting landscapes by almost bypassing the accrued rate of taskscapes over thousands and thousands of years that mould what we see today. You could use it to explore Britain and Ireland, from the Palaeolithic to today. I only ever had to use it for sites like the Hill of Tara (phew). Add the Amazon rainforest or aboriginal Australians and their sensory engagement in their specific worlds and environments. How this all subsequently encultured varies tremendously, but the phenomenological underpinnings remain the same.

We think therefore we build therefore we dwell. Apparently. Ingold does a thorough appraisal of both Huserl and Heidegger in the introduction, then each successive chapter applies these positions to a wide range of case studies.
 
To continue on my boring Luddite making obvious points run one of the reasons I think iPhones and internet are bad for us is because the task space we dwell in, our primary environment (Screen) doesn’t allow us to construct Meaning and position ourselves within the life process as described above.
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
i think its a good line of inquiry you had a good conversation with Stan last night
 
Top