Philosophy Now Forum

Dasein and Being-in-the-world – Heidegger
at the Eternalised: In Pursuit of Meaning website

The fundamental concept of Being and Time is the idea of Da-sein or “being-there”, which simply means existence, it is the experience of the human being.

In other words, from birth to death, what does it mean to be "there" and not "here". To be "here" or "there" now and not before or later. Existence relative to being out in a particular world at a particular time.

The world is full of beings, but human beings are the only ones who care about what it means to be themselves.

“A human being is the entity which in its Being has this very Being as an issue.”

What could possibly be more obvious? And yet, clearly, depending on the individual, some will explore this in depth while others will barely consider it at all. At least not philosophically. In fact, most leave all that to the ecclesiastics. It becomes a religious matter and there may be any number of Scripts "out there" in their own particular world to choose from.

Dasein and human beings are interrelated, without one another, there is no being and no meaning. Existence only exists within our being, and the reality without our being is irrelevant.

If a volcano were to erupt without us being there, would it actually have happened? Heidegger would tell us that it would simply be irrelevant.

“We are ourselves the entities to be analysed.”

Dasein is what is common to all of us, and it is what makes us entities.

Again, does one have to be a philosopher to come to conclusions of this sort? Human beings not only exist but in a free will world it is going to dawn on most that they "exist here", they "exist now". And then, rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, individuals may or may not ask themselves the sort of questions that philosophers do. They may or may not come to the conclusions that I do regarding the distinction between I in the either/or world and "I" in the is/ought world.

What is relevant or irrelevant to us not in regard to erupting volcanoes so much as in regard to erupting pandemics or wars or civil strife.

Or holocausts. Heidegger's Dasein and my own dasein then.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:23 pm Dasein and Being-in-the-world – Heidegger
at the Eternalised: In Pursuit of Meaning website

The fundamental concept of Being and Time is the idea of Da-sein or “being-there”, which simply means existence, it is the experience of the human being.

In other words, from birth to death, what does it mean to be "there" and not "here". To be "here" or "there" now and not before or later. Existence relative to being out in a particular world at a particular time.

The world is full of beings, but human beings are the only ones who care about what it means to be themselves.

“A human being is the entity which in its Being has this very Being as an issue.”

What could possibly be more obvious? And yet, clearly, depending on the individual, some will explore this in depth while others will barely consider it at all. At least not philosophically. In fact, most leave all that to the ecclesiastics. It becomes a religious matter and there may be any number of Scripts "out there" in their own particular world to choose from.

Dasein and human beings are interrelated, without one another, there is no being and no meaning. Existence only exists within our being, and the reality without our being is irrelevant.

If a volcano were to erupt without us being there, would it actually have happened? Heidegger would tell us that it would simply be irrelevant.

“We are ourselves the entities to be analysed.”

Dasein is what is common to all of us, and it is what makes us entities.

Again, does one have to be a philosopher to come to conclusions of this sort? Human beings not only exist but in a free will world it is going to dawn on most that they "exist here", they "exist now". And then, rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, individuals may or may not ask themselves the sort of questions that philosophers do. They may or may not come to the conclusions that I do regarding the distinction between I in the either/or world and "I" in the is/ought world.

What is relevant or irrelevant to us not in regard to erupting volcanoes so much as in regard to erupting pandemics or wars or civil strife.

Or holocausts. Heidegger's Dasein and my own dasein then.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

I previously asked a question, about when people are Scream (the movie) fans when in a supermarket; the concept of being underscored the application of the question.

In Tesco, in Wolverhampton in the UK, when are people Scream fans?

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 6:53 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:23 pm Dasein and Being-in-the-world – Heidegger
at the Eternalised: In Pursuit of Meaning website

The fundamental concept of Being and Time is the idea of Da-sein or “being-there”, which simply means existence, it is the experience of the human being.

In other words, from birth to death, what does it mean to be "there" and not "here". To be "here" or "there" now and not before or later. Existence relative to being out in a particular world at a particular time.

The world is full of beings, but human beings are the only ones who care about what it means to be themselves.

“A human being is the entity which in its Being has this very Being as an issue.”

What could possibly be more obvious? And yet, clearly, depending on the individual, some will explore this in depth while others will barely consider it at all. At least not philosophically. In fact, most leave all that to the ecclesiastics. It becomes a religious matter and there may be any number of Scripts "out there" in their own particular world to choose from.

Dasein and human beings are interrelated, without one another, there is no being and no meaning. Existence only exists within our being, and the reality without our being is irrelevant.

If a volcano were to erupt without us being there, would it actually have happened? Heidegger would tell us that it would simply be irrelevant.

“We are ourselves the entities to be analysed.”

Dasein is what is common to all of us, and it is what makes us entities.

Again, does one have to be a philosopher to come to conclusions of this sort? Human beings not only exist but in a free will world it is going to dawn on most that they "exist here", they "exist now". And then, rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, individuals may or may not ask themselves the sort of questions that philosophers do. They may or may not come to the conclusions that I do regarding the distinction between I in the either/or world and "I" in the is/ought world.

What is relevant or irrelevant to us not in regard to erupting volcanoes so much as in regard to erupting pandemics or wars or civil strife.

Or holocausts. Heidegger's Dasein and my own dasein then.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

I previously asked a question, about when people are Scream (the movie) fans when in a supermarket; the concept of being underscored the application of the question.

In Tesco, in Wolverhampton in the UK, when are people Scream fans?

Let me guess: Wrong thread?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 9:13 pm

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 6:53 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:23 pm Dasein and Being-in-the-world – Heidegger
at the Eternalised: In Pursuit of Meaning website



In other words, from birth to death, what does it mean to be "there" and not "here". To be "here" or "there" now and not before or later. Existence relative to being out in a particular world at a particular time.



What could possibly be more obvious? And yet, clearly, depending on the individual, some will explore this in depth while others will barely consider it at all. At least not philosophically. In fact, most leave all that to the ecclesiastics. It becomes a religious matter and there may be any number of Scripts "out there" in their own particular world to choose from.





Again, does one have to be a philosopher to come to conclusions of this sort? Human beings not only exist but in a free will world it is going to dawn on most that they "exist here", they "exist now". And then, rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, individuals may or may not ask themselves the sort of questions that philosophers do. They may or may not come to the conclusions that I do regarding the distinction between I in the either/or world and "I" in the is/ought world.

What is relevant or irrelevant to us not in regard to erupting volcanoes so much as in regard to erupting pandemics or wars or civil strife.

Or holocausts. Heidegger's Dasein and my own dasein then.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

I previously asked a question, about when people are Scream (the movie) fans when in a supermarket; the concept of being underscored the application of the question.

In Tesco, in Wolverhampton in the UK, when are people Scream fans?

Let me guess: Wrong thread?

The issue of here and there, can possibly apply to when people are fans of a topic, or a subject matter. The location of Tesco is about humanising the issue, out of a humanitarian concern

"The location of Tesco is about humanising the issue, out of a humanitarian concern"

This is absolutely correct. The planners for the Tesco store locations not only want to provide maximum accessibility for store customers, but also to preserve and defend the right of all human beings to shop for a wide variety of groceries and other assorted goods in a safe and reliable environment. It is for these reasons that the men and women of Tesco are great humanitarians whom we should certainly honor and admire.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 8:39 pm "The location of Tesco is about humanising the issue, out of a humanitarian concern"

This is absolutely correct. The planners for the Tesco store locations not only want to provide maximum accessibility for store customers, but also to preserve and defend the right of all human beings to shop for a wide variety of groceries and other assorted goods in a safe and reliable environment. It is for these reasons that the men and women of Tesco are great humanitarians whom we should certainly honor and admire.

When I said out of humanitarian concern, I meant that Tesco workers have the right to be universal fans of their topics, on the condition that they are fans of such topics (as perhaps Scream)

Dasein and Being-in-the-world – Heidegger
at the Eternalised: In Pursuit of Meaning website

Dasein is then not a disembodied, transcendent being, but rather the experience of being that is peculiar to human beings, an inherently social being that already operates with a pre-theoretical grasp of the a priori structures that make possible particular modes of Being.

Tell me that we don't need a few actual existential contexts here in order to make this effable.

And it's peculiar to human beings only in the sense that no other species on Earth has evolved to the point where they are able to invent such things as philosophy and computers and the internet. And though often described as a "social being", historically and culturally, the emphasis has often shifted back and forth between "I" and "we" and "them".

As for the "a priori structures that make possible particular modes of Being", you tell me. Given a set of circumstances that will allow you to "illustrate the text".

Instead...

Heidegger stresses it to be pre-theoretical because a theoretical structure would prevent us from seeing things as they are in themselves. This perspective can then allow things to show as they are in themselves and not through some kind of lens.

How is an assessment of this sort not perhaps an important reason why so few have an interest in philosophy? If, after noting something like this, an author then went on to examine how it is applicable to human interactions from day to day...how it pertains to his or her own personal experiences out in the world with others...it might at the very least allow others to grasp how it is applicable "for all practical purposes" to the "human condition" they encounter in the course of living their lives.

A "thing in itself" may actually be beyond the reach of both philosophers and scientists. It may instead only be grasped by what may or may not be an existing God. For mere mortals on this planet there are always going to be "lens". Philosophy being just one of them. And, even here, grasped through the lens of free will. An assumption derived wholly through the lens of a mechanical nature.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:23 pm Dasein and Being-in-the-world – Heidegger
at the Eternalised: In Pursuit of Meaning website

The fundamental concept of Being and Time is the idea of Da-sein or “being-there”, which simply means existence, it is the experience of the human being.

In other words, from birth to death, what does it mean to be "there" and not "here". To be "here" or "there" now and not before or later. Existence relative to being out in a particular world at a particular time.

'you', human beings, are 'there', for just a very limited 'moment'. Whereas,

'I' am 'here', ALWAYS.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:23 pm

The world is full of beings, but human beings are the only ones who care about what it means to be themselves.

“A human being is the entity which in its Being has this very Being as an issue.”

The very limited human 'being' is NOT thee eternal 'Being', and NOT confusing the two is BEST.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:23 pm What could possibly be more obvious?

What 'you' are referring to here, EXACTLY, is NOT even 'obvious', let alone what 'it' is, which you are referring to, being 'obvious', itself.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:23 pm And yet, clearly, depending on the individual, some will explore this in depth while others will barely consider it at all.

And, it could be SAID and ARGUED, until the question, 'Who am 'I'?' is answered properly AND correctly, then 'you', individual human beings, have NOT even begun to explore AT ALL, let alone IN DEPTH, the True Self, or Being, WITHIN 'you' and WITHIN ALL 'things'.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:23 pm At least not philosophically. In fact, most leave all that to the ecclesiastics. It becomes a religious matter and there may be any number of Scripts "out there" in their own particular world to choose from.

And here 'you' are PROVIDING just ANOTHER 'script', for us to LOOK AT, and maybe, hopefully, FOLLOW, correct?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:23 pm

Dasein and human beings are interrelated, without one another, there is no being and no meaning. Existence only exists within our being, and the reality without our being is irrelevant.

If a volcano were to erupt without us being there, would it actually have happened?

Well considering the Fact that you just SAID, 'It DID erupt', then, OBVIOUSLY, YES, it ACTUALLY DID happen.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:23 pm Heidegger would tell us that it would simply be irrelevant.

WHO CARES what SOME people SAY?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:23 pm “We are ourselves the entities to be analysed.”

And, ONLY when one of you STARTS questioning WHY 'you' do what 'you' DO, then 'you' WILL COME-TO-KNOW WHO 'you' ARE, EXACTLY.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:23 pm Dasein is what is common to all of us, and it is what makes us entities.

REALLY?

So, what is 'Dasein', EXACTLY, to you?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:23 pm Again, does one have to be a philosopher to come to conclusions of this sort?

Considering the Fact about what a 'philosopher' is EXACTLY, then the answer to this is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS.

But, what EXACTLY is a 'philosopher', to you?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:23 pm Human beings not only exist but in a free will world it is going to dawn on most that they "exist here", they "exist now".

You talk about a 'free will world' here, BUT are 'you', human beings, 'free willed beings'?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:23 pm And then, rooted in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, individuals may or may not ask themselves the sort of questions that philosophers do.

LOL and what sort of questions are they, EXACTLY?

And, what is the ACTUAL difference between an 'individual' and a so-called 'philosopher'?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:23 pm They may or may not come to the conclusions that I do regarding the distinction between I in the either/or world and "I" in the is/ought world.

What is relevant or irrelevant to us not in regard to erupting volcanoes so much as in regard to erupting pandemics or wars or civil strife.

Are you meant to be saying some 'thing' LOGICAL here?

If yes, then what is 'that', EXACTLY?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:23 pm Or holocausts. Heidegger's Dasein and my own dasein then.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

WHY do you link us to ANOTHER 'forum'?

Would you prefer we READ your thoughts, and RESPOND to you, in 'that forum'?

Why do you not just copy what you wrote SOMEWHERE ELSE and PLACE 'it' HERE?

Or, is this part of YOUR what does it mean to be 'here' OR 'there', questioning?

Dasein and Being-in-the-world – Heidegger
at the Eternalised: In Pursuit of Meaning website

Being-in-the-world

He associates Dasein as “Being-in-the-world”, they are often used hand-in-hand. Being-in-the-world is an existential concept that emphasises human existence as a state of living with a highly meaningful orientation. Each individual has a unique destiny to fulfil in this world.

This is an essential characteristic of Dasein. It is defined as an a-priori structure being “grounded” in the state of Being.

And why might that be?

Because with human beings, being is ever and always a sojourn...an existential trajectory embodied in the act of becoming from the cradle to the grave. We are not a “Being-in-the-world” so much as a being that is ever and always evolving out in a particular world. And, depending on when and where you were "thrown" at birth, how you come to connect the dots between "in my head" and "out in the world with others" can be profoundly different.

As for destiny, that is no less problematic. Being or becoming, your life might literally be destined if everything you think and feel and say and do is wholly determined by nature. But even given some measure of autonomy there are any number of factors in our lives that predispose us to go in directions that are not either fully understood or within our control.

But in order "establish" the "essential characteristic of Dasein", Heidegger seems more inclined to define it into existence given an "a-priori structure" that others can then draw their own conclusions about regarding, among other things, Nazis.

As mentioned before, Dasein is not a Being that can be observed, how can we then understand it? Heidegger would tell us to study beings, and especially what it is like to be a human being.

We need to look at what is unique about our situation as human beings. But what makes Dasein different from all other beings: rocks, plants, and animals?

Well, for starters, rocks, plants and other animals don't engage in philosophical discussions about the nature of Being. They don't interact in an "is/ought" world. They don't dwell on dasein in the manner in which "I" do in that world.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Dasein and Being-in-the-world – Heidegger
at the Eternalised: In Pursuit of Meaning website

Feature 1. Being as an issue

The first feature of Dasein is that it is a “being as an issue for it”. It takes its own being as an issue; for it is ontological being. In other words, it asks questions about its own existence, it is always confronted with the question “what shall I be today, tomorrow or next year?”.

An ontological being. Then, of course, for me, how far back one is then inclined to take this. After all, you can take it back so far that you are forced to admit you don't really have a clue as to where "I" fits into what reality may or may not be. Where does your own particular "I" fit into the world around us today? Where does that fit into the "human condition"? Where does the human condition fit going all the way back to a comprehensive understanding of Existence itself?

Is it any wonder then that some scoff at philosophers who don't simply get on with the far more pressing business of just living their lives and coming up with the least dysfunctional manner in which to interact with others.

And these questions are to be answered by oneself, he calls it “mineness”. We have no other way of experiencing ourselves or the world as being in any other mode than our own existence.

"Mineness". But first for years and years you are indoctrinated to be but another replication of "theirness". And even here wholly dependent on the particular time and place in which you just happened to be born. Philosophers are no exception to that profoundly existential manifestation of human identity. The questions you come to ask may or may not be the questions others ask. The answers you give may or may not be entirely in conflict with theirs.

Isn't this the most important issue by far? Exploring not "mineness", but the profound limitations of philosophy in explicating what that means at all.

For example, connecting the dots between Heidegger's own philosophical assessment of "mineness" and...fascism?



https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:23 pm 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.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Feb 27, 2022 11:02 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:23 pm 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.

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".

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 2:54 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Feb 27, 2022 11:02 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:23 pm 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.

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.

Inventing empty philosophical neologisms is good for business, especially when trying to publish books.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 5:23 pm The fundamental concept of Being and Time is the idea of Da-sein or “being-there”, which simply means existence, it is the experience of the human being....my own dasein then.

"My own dasein"?

In German, da sein is the vernacular term for "existence", as in "I am pleased with my existence" (Ich bin mit meinem Dasein zufrieden). The term has been used by several philosophers before Heidegger, most notably Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, with the meaning of "determined being" (bestimmtes Sein), The union of Being and Nothing (Quality). It is derived from da-sein, which literally means "being-there"/"there-being".

So that gives us:

The Hegelian use of "dasein" and the Heideggerian one, which are different.

Allegedly, Heidegger got his idea from Okakura Kakuzo's Taoism.

So now we have Hegel, Heidegger and Kakuzo...all somewhat different.

Subsequent uses were different again. There was...

Jaspers, Tarasi, Lacan and Schutz. All had different versions and applications.

Any thoughts, iam? Can you clear this up for us?

What is this "my own dasein" of which you speak?