Dasein/dasein

[Martin Peter Clarke]

The classic question is: if you replace every single plank, nail, and part of a ship, is it still the same ship?

My answer is simple and bold: The real ship of Theseus is the one named “Theseus.” The parts don’t matter.

Let me explain. I’m Bilal, and I have a hand. That hand belongs to me. But I don’t belong to that hand. The hand is part of me, but my identity is not tied to just that hand alone. People say “This is Bilal’s hand,” not “This is the hand’s Bilal.” The hand is property; I am the person.

Similarly, if I buy a laptop and call it “Champ” — my favorite name — and then replace every piece inside that laptop over time, it remains my “Champ.” The parts are like belongings or inheritances; they’re not the “parents” of the thing’s identity.

Now take a country like name it "AsiaTop". "AsiaTop" is not "AsiaTop" because of its current people or buildings. Even if someone conquers it, replaces every person with new inhabitants, and rebuilds everything, it is still called "AsiaTop". People say "AsiaTop has been conquered,” not "AsiaTop is now homeless.” The name and the concept of AsiaTop persist regardless of the physical changes.

So, the paradox dissolves if you understand that identity comes from the name and continuity, not the physical components. The ship is the ship because we call it that, not because of its parts.

If another ship is created with its parts, then it could be named as that maker of that ship wants, doesnot mean that it will also named as Ship of Theseus

So if I take the ship completely apart, replacing each part as I go, but keep the name plate, whilst reassembling the original, without it, what is which?

And the country analogy doesn't work. What did the aborigines of the Americas, Australasia, Siberia, Greenland, et al, call their lands?

Apart from that I agree.

[Belinda]

The classic question is: if you replace every single plank, nail, and part of a ship, is it still the same ship?

My answer is simple and bold: The real ship of Theseus is the one named “Theseus.” The parts don’t matter.

Let me explain. I’m Bilal, and I have a hand. That hand belongs to me. But I don’t belong to that hand. The hand is part of me, but my identity is not tied to just that hand alone. People say “This is Bilal’s hand,” not “This is the hand’s Bilal.” The hand is property; I am the person.

Similarly, if I buy a laptop and call it “Champ” — my favorite name — and then replace every piece inside that laptop over time, it remains my “Champ.” The parts are like belongings or inheritances; they’re not the “parents” of the thing’s identity.

Now take a country like name it "AsiaTop". "AsiaTop" is not "AsiaTop" because of its current people or buildings. Even if someone conquers it, replaces every person with new inhabitants, and rebuilds everything, it is still called "AsiaTop". People say "AsiaTop has been conquered,” not "AsiaTop is now homeless.” The name and the concept of AsiaTop persist regardless of the physical changes.

So, the paradox dissolves if you understand that identity comes from the name and continuity, not the physical components. The ship is the ship because we call it that, not because of its parts.

If another ship is created with its parts, then it could be named as that maker of that ship wants, doesnot mean that it will also named as Ship of Theseus

So if I take the ship completely apart, replacing each part as I go, but keep the name plate, whilst reassembling the original, without it, what is which?

And the country analogy doesn't work. What did the aborigines of the Americas, Australasia, Siberia, Greenland, et al, call their lands?

Apart from that I agree.

Identities are established by salient attributes that are of socio-economic importance. Thus a river has always been of socio-economic importance especially if it's navigable. Taking a river as an example of an identifiable object we find that the same river sometimes changes its name according to which language group has named that specific stretch of it. Taking a human individual as an example of an identity we find the the same individual has different names and identities according to socio=economic importance, power, affections, kin group, and so forth.Identities are social categories. In a scientifically enlightened society nobody is identified as a witch and each individual is identified by dental records, documentation, thumb prints, or DNA.

Personal identity is possible only for humans. As far as is known other animals don't conceptualise self. Humans conceptualise self only in a state of waking consciousness and in some but not all, dream states. There are states of waking consciousness, sometimes referred to as 'mystical' , where waking consciousness is devoid of self.

Dasein is a state of waking awareness state which changes constantly according to how the Dasein views his or her place in the world (social identity) ; also within his or her own internal feeling and judgement of what the person himself is. Dasein is sometimes accompanied by insight but more often is not insightful. Heidegger has opened our eyes to the insight of Dasein. There are some people who simply cannot 'get' the concept of Dasein.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Dasein ,,,

Don't dasein (be there) when it happens is the first law of self-defence. Probably fifty percent of people who get into trouble do so because they dasein where and when they shouldn't.

Anything else said about dasein is philosophical nonsense such as Heidegger spouted.

Such as that.

[Belinda]

The classic question is: if you replace every single plank, nail, and part of a ship, is it still the same ship?

My answer is simple and bold: The real ship of Theseus is the one named “Theseus.” The parts don’t matter.

Let me explain. I’m Bilal, and I have a hand. That hand belongs to me. But I don’t belong to that hand. The hand is part of me, but my identity is not tied to just that hand alone. People say “This is Bilal’s hand,” not “This is the hand’s Bilal.” The hand is property; I am the person.

Similarly, if I buy a laptop and call it “Champ” — my favorite name — and then replace every piece inside that laptop over time, it remains my “Champ.” The parts are like belongings or inheritances; they’re not the “parents” of the thing’s identity.

Now take a country like name it "AsiaTop". "AsiaTop" is not "AsiaTop" because of its current people or buildings. Even if someone conquers it, replaces every person with new inhabitants, and rebuilds everything, it is still called "AsiaTop". People say "AsiaTop has been conquered,” not "AsiaTop is now homeless.” The name and the concept of AsiaTop persist regardless of the physical changes.

So, the paradox dissolves if you understand that identity comes from the name and continuity, not the physical components. The ship is the ship because we call it that, not because of its parts.

If another ship is created with its parts, then it could be named as that maker of that ship wants, doesnot mean that it will also named as Ship of Theseus

So if I take the ship completely apart, replacing each part as I go, but keep the name plate, whilst reassembling the original, without it, what is which?

And the country analogy doesn't work. What did the aborigines of the Americas, Australasia, Siberia, Greenland, et al, call their lands?

Apart from that I agree.

Nation states are comparatively recent. "Aborigines" did not identify themselves by nation state but by kinships such as families .or other social groups. such as defence or cooperation e.g. trading. Common language was a main social glue.
Many modern nation states began very recently indeed , for instance Italy, Germany, and Spain. Before those were nation states they were a multiplicity of tribal kingdoms .

The Ship of Theseus shows how existence precedes essence. A thing such as a ship has no essence except for the essence that a society confers upon it.

A ship is not a person. A ship is a thing, a ship is a commodity .

Personal subjective identity is morally and psychologically precious . A person is not a commodity. It's morally indefensible to dehumanise another person. The essence of a person is properly how the person conceives him or herself to be at the moment of death at which juncture he or she attains finality. This why slavery is morally wrong. Slaves are deprived of their right to be persons and are deemed commodities of value only to others.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Don't dasein (be there) when it happens is the first law of self-defence. Probably fifty percent of people who get into trouble do so because they dasein where and when they shouldn't.

Anything else said about dasein is philosophical nonsense such as Heidegger spouted.

Not sure what your point about the first law of self-defense is. Let's bring it down to earth in regard to a context we are all likely to be familiar with.

As for Heidegger, whether his own capital D Dasein is philosophical nonsense or not, my main interest is in how he would bring his intellectual premises out into the world of actual human interactions.

I often wonder if someone who had read Being and Time, might have asked him, "how then are your arguments applicable to fascism and Jews and the Final Solution?"

The part I root in dasein with a small "d".

Just joking.

No you weren't.

[iambiguous]

Heidegger’s “Being and Time” explores Dasein and temporality, revealing how human existence is deeply intertwined with time and authenticity.
Viktoriya Sus at The Collector

However, there is also a negative aspect to Heidegger’s legacy. In the 1930s, he joined the Nazi Party, something that has since caused furious debate about his philosophy and morals.

The part I tend to focus on. In other words, there's existentialism up in the philosophical clouds, and then there's the "for all practical purposes" existentialism revolving around what you believe in your head about Being and Time and the actual behaviors that you choose.

Anyone here care to go there? There's what you think you understand about Heidegger's own set of assumptions in the book, and then how, personally, you react to the parts about fascism and Nazis and "final solutions". The part I root existentially in dasein and in the Benjamin Button Syndrome. With respect to conflicting goods.

His thinking helped shape existentialism, hermeneutics, and postmodernism—influences echoed in the ideas of Jean-Paul Sartre, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida, among many others. When a thinker of this stature comes along, people have to pause for thought: What does existence mean anyway?

On the other hand, whose particular existence out in what particular world, understood in what particular way? It's not like philosophers haven't been debating this for millenia. And it's not like an argument can be provided enabling all rational men and women to agree on the optimal understanding of it. And it's not like Heidegger himself wasn't confronted with both the gap and Rummy's rule.

[Belinda]

Heidegger’s “Being and Time” explores Dasein and temporality, revealing how human existence is deeply intertwined with time and authenticity.
Viktoriya Sus at The Collector

However, there is also a negative aspect to Heidegger’s legacy. In the 1930s, he joined the Nazi Party, something that has since caused furious debate about his philosophy and morals.

The part I tend to focus on. In other words, there's existentialism up in the philosophical clouds, and then there's the "for all practical purposes" existentialism revolving around what you believe in your head about Being and Time and the actual behaviors that you choose.

Anyone here care to go there? There's what you think you understand about Heidegger's own set of assumptions in the book, and then how, personally, you react to the parts about fascism and Nazis and "final solutions". The part I root existentially in dasein and in the Benjamin Button Syndrome. With respect to conflicting goods.

His thinking helped shape existentialism, hermeneutics, and postmodernism—influences echoed in the ideas of Jean-Paul Sartre, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida, among many others. When a thinker of this stature comes along, people have to pause for thought: What does existence mean anyway?

On the other hand, whose particular existence out in what particular world, understood in what particular way? It's not like philosophers haven't been debating this for millenia. And it's not like an argument can be provided enabling all rational men and women to agree on the optimal understanding of it. And it's not like Heidegger himself wasn't confronted with both the gap and Rummy's rule.

The Dasein that was Heidegger at one juncture of Heidegger's life was, so we are told, Nazi. The Dasein that was Heidegger at another juncture of Heidegger's life was his friendship with Hannah Arendt.

The existentialist places existence before essence; which implies that it's wrong to label a man as a "Nazi", a "waiter" , a grower of roses, whatever, as the man is more than his temporary persona . The authentic man does not label himself so.The existentialist does not label others so.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Heidegger’s “Being and Time” explores Dasein and temporality, revealing how human existence is deeply intertwined with time and authenticity.
Viktoriya Sus at The Collector

However, there is also a negative aspect to Heidegger’s legacy. In the 1930s, he joined the Nazi Party, something that has since caused furious debate about his philosophy and morals.

The part I tend to focus on. In other words, there's existentialism up in the philosophical clouds, and then there's the "for all practical purposes" existentialism revolving around what you believe in your head about Being and Time and the actual behaviors that you choose.

Anyone here care to go there? There's what you think you understand about Heidegger's own set of assumptions in the book, and then how, personally, you react to the parts about fascism and Nazis and "final solutions". The part I root existentially in dasein and in the Benjamin Button Syndrome. With respect to conflicting goods.

His thinking helped shape existentialism, hermeneutics, and postmodernism—influences echoed in the ideas of Jean-Paul Sartre, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida, among many others. When a thinker of this stature comes along, people have to pause for thought: What does existence mean anyway?

On the other hand, whose particular existence out in what particular world, understood in what particular way? It's not like philosophers haven't been debating this for millenia. And it's not like an argument can be provided enabling all rational men and women to agree on the optimal understanding of it. And it's not like Heidegger himself wasn't confronted with both the gap and Rummy's rule.

The Dasein that was Heidegger at one juncture of Heidegger's life was, so we are told, Nazi. The Dasein that was Heidegger at another juncture of Heidegger's life was his friendship with Hannah Arendt.

The existentialist places existence before essence; which implies that it's wrong to label a man as a "Nazi", a "waiter" , a grower of roses, whatever, as the man is more than his temporary persona . The authentic man does not label himself so.The existentialist does not label others so.

There are two lies. I didn't mean it. And. I'm not that person now.

[Belinda]

Heidegger’s “Being and Time” explores Dasein and temporality, revealing how human existence is deeply intertwined with time and authenticity.
Viktoriya Sus at The Collector



The part I tend to focus on. In other words, there's existentialism up in the philosophical clouds, and then there's the "for all practical purposes" existentialism revolving around what you believe in your head about Being and Time and the actual behaviors that you choose.

Anyone here care to go there? There's what you think you understand about Heidegger's own set of assumptions in the book, and then how, personally, you react to the parts about fascism and Nazis and "final solutions". The part I root existentially in dasein and in the Benjamin Button Syndrome. With respect to conflicting goods.



On the other hand, whose particular existence out in what particular world, understood in what particular way? It's not like philosophers haven't been debating this for millenia. And it's not like an argument can be provided enabling all rational men and women to agree on the optimal understanding of it. And it's not like Heidegger himself wasn't confronted with both the gap and Rummy's rule.

The Dasein that was Heidegger at one juncture of Heidegger's life was, so we are told, Nazi. The Dasein that was Heidegger at another juncture of Heidegger's life was his friendship with Hannah Arendt.

The existentialist places existence before essence; which implies that it's wrong to label a man as a "Nazi", a "waiter" , a grower of roses, whatever, as the man is more than his temporary persona . The authentic man does not label himself so.The existentialist does not label others so.

There are two lies. I didn't mean it. And. I'm not that person now.

Is a person a work in progress or is a person an everlasting self

[Martin Peter Clarke]

The Dasein that was Heidegger at one juncture of Heidegger's life was, so we are told, Nazi. The Dasein that was Heidegger at another juncture of Heidegger's life was his friendship with Hannah Arendt.

The existentialist places existence before essence; which implies that it's wrong to label a man as a "Nazi", a "waiter" , a grower of roses, whatever, as the man is more than his temporary persona . The authentic man does not label himself so.The existentialist does not label others so.

There are two lies. I didn't mean it. And. I'm not that person now.

Is a person a work in progress or is a person an everlasting self

A false dichotomy ignoring personal responsibility.

[Belinda]

There are two lies. I didn't mean it. And. I'm not that person now.

Is a person a work in progress or is a person an everlasting self

A false dichotomy ignoring personal responsibility.

Are taking responsibility and forgiving oneself mutually incompatible?

I mean I can take responsibility without feeling guilty or ashamed.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Is a person a work in progress or is a person an everlasting self

A false dichotomy ignoring personal responsibility.

Are taking responsibility and forgiving oneself mutually incompatible?

I mean I can take responsibility without feeling guilty or ashamed.

That's because you have nothing to be guilty or ashamed of. Heidegger was a fucking unrepentant, unapologetic Nazi. And great philosopher. It's like Caravaggio, a man of severely disordered, dangerous passions who produced the greatest art of his generation.

[Belinda]

A false dichotomy ignoring personal responsibility.

Are taking responsibility and forgiving oneself mutually incompatible?

I mean I can take responsibility without feeling guilty or ashamed.

That's because you have nothing to be guilty or ashamed of. Heidegger was a fucking unrepentant, unapologetic Nazi. And great philosopher. It's like Caravaggio, a man of severely disordered, dangerous passions who produced the greatest art of his generation.

I have to agree. But you did not answer me "Are taking responsibility and forgiving oneself mutually incompatible?" I suppose it boils down to what 'taking responsibility' means.

Can it be possible to take responsibility without feeling ordinary human sympathy?

For instance when a violent criminal is taken to justice, the judge looks for signs of remorse ( not guilt or shame). For instance when reportage of a war zone contains 'human interest' that's when the reportage influences people.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's because you have nothing to be guilty or ashamed of. Heidegger was a fucking unrepentant, unapologetic Nazi. And great philosopher. It's like Caravaggio, a man of severely disordered, dangerous passions who produced the greatest art of his generation.

This does not quite follow. Caravaggio was (as you say) severely disordered and with dangerous passions. I.e. “sick” and unwell.

Heidegger was not ever described in this way to my knowledge.

What do you make of the fact that he (seemed to) remain a Nazi? Or that he never recanted or repented?

[Gary Childress]

That's because you have nothing to be guilty or ashamed of. Heidegger was a fucking unrepentant, unapologetic Nazi. And great philosopher. It's like Caravaggio, a man of severely disordered, dangerous passions who produced the greatest art of his generation.

This does not quite follow. Caravaggio was (as you say) severely disordered and with dangerous passions. I.e. “sick” and unwell.

Heidegger was not ever described in this way to my knowledge.

What do you make of the fact that he (seemed to) remain a Nazi? Or that he never recanted or repented?

I've heard that Heidegger has been described by some of his intellectual peers as a German "redneck". He was also arguably unfair to his mentor, Edmund Husserl, during the time of the Nazis. Apparently did nothing to stand up for him against Nazi persecution. Some philosophers have called Heidegger a charlatan. He was a card-carrying Nazi until the end. What can be said of that?