• clem
    7
    Freud might be even MORE influential today than Heidegger. At any rate, F. is still influential. And he was naive and generally from same world as H.

    So yeah, H. doesn't quite get enough credit for his general influence from people who think they know; although in your case you might actually overshoot the mark !

    But... like everything, both F&H are artifacts of history "coming back" at the present "at the same time" from the future. In other words, in a few respects mistaken -- and often "naive" as contemporary discourse.

    I myself, you understand, am a Heidegger "cultist," although also trying to remain quite skeptical.
  • clem
    7
    Freud is MORE influential. Or at any rate, F. is influential and was naive. Also from same world as Heidegger.

    I agree H.'s general influence is often uncredited by those who think they know. You, however, may have slightly overshot the mark.

    Question of naivete is, I guess, historical, in a mostly non-Heideggerian sense. That is to say, styles of current discourse are vastly far from F&H.

    (Current fields of psychology and philosophy are mostly wastelands and junkyards.)
  • creativesoul
    6k
    The differences between nonlinguistic thought/belief, pre-reflective linguistically informed thought/belief, and reflective linguistically informed thought/belief can only be parsed in terms of the basic outline regarding the elemental constituency of all thought/belief.

    Heidegger missed the boat by a mile
  • Arne
    416
    Heidegger did not miss the boat. He simply points out that the boat is in an always already existing world and that all thoughts, pre-reflective or pre-linguistic or whatever, are necessarily interpreted from within that world. A careful reading of Heidegger's Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics penetrates about as closely as possible to the state of being that precedes any and all interpretation. All of your distinctions are post being-in-the-world. And I would certainly be willing to read Heidegger with some sort of "target" schedule outcome.
  • Arne
    416
    within Heidegger's interpretation of being, language is one method of articulating an understanding rooted in the intelligibility of being-in-the-world. Our primordial state of being is as being-in-the-world. Being-in-the-world is not just another way to describe being, being-in-the-world is what and who you are. You are being-in-the-world. And being-in-the-world is antecedent to any boat you suggest Heidegger may have missed. You cannot possibly describe, reflect upon, think about or articulate in any form a fashion a world if you were not already in one. Being-in-the-world is who you are.
  • Arne
    416
    I would suggest that what you call "the elemental constituency
    of all thought/belief" is what Heidegger would call an "understanding." Not only do we make our way about in the world by means of our "understanding" of the world, we are an understanding of the world. And all thoughts and beliefs arise and are interpreted within that understanding.
  • Arne
    416
    coming back? When was Heidegger gone?
  • clem
    7
    "Should we read Being and Time?"

    As a mere Heidegger "cultist," I have no idea. Besides, I HATE the term "we" in contexts like this. It's the USAToday school of philosophy?????

    But my question is, what ELSE should I read by Heidegger?

    I've been through the "Basic Writings" anthology, and "History of Time." I now consider it a mistake to have acquired a copy of "Contributions." The little collection "On Language" seems fairly minor.

    Am leaning toward "Introduction to Metaphysics" as my next read. Any suggestions? I mean, there can't be more than a few additional "major" works by the guy.
  • Fooloso4
    1k
    It looks like the answer to the thread title: "Should we read Being and Time?" is no. I think that is unfortunate.

    One reason to read Heidegger is that he knew how to read.

    Someone please wake me up if some intrepid soul decides that yes we should and begins a reading group.
  • Joshs
    716
    I highly recommend the Zollikon Seminars, a 10 year discussion(1959-69) between Heidegger and a group of psychiatrists. It was organized by Heidegger's friend Medard Boss. Among other things, it has a devastating Heidegger critique of Freud and Binswanger and a fascinating discussion of modern physics.
    I tend to prefer Heidegger's pre-1930's writing, but among later works I'd recommend Identity and Difference(1957) . The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics(1929) offers Heidegger's definitive treatment of the concept of boredom and its relation to authenticity.

    i find The Concept of Time(1924) , which is about more than temporality, helpful in fleshing out some of the ideas in Being and Time.
  • clem
    7
    Yah FCM seems like it'd be a hoot and really a must-do. But IM has the Nazi money quote. Seems like the Nietzsche books are pretty far down on the list, though Paul Celan seemed to like them.

    Zollikon initially sounded great and your suggestion is valuable. But am nervous it maybe it gets a bit deep in the weeds. Physics? Maybe that'll be a library withdrawal rather than a purchase.
  • Arne
    416
    I am willing to read Being and Time in a group type setting. Wake up!!
  • Terrapin Station
    12.5k
    within Heidegger's interpretation of being, language is one method of articulating an understanding rooted in the intelligibility of being-in-the-world. Our primordial state of being is as being-in-the-world. Being-in-the-world is not just another way to describe being, being-in-the-world is what and who you are. You are being-in-the-world. And being-in-the-world is antecedent to any boat you suggest Heidegger may have missed. You cannot possibly describe, reflect upon, think about or articulate in any form a fashion a world if you were not already in one. Being-in-the-world is who you are.Arne

    It's not at all clear what "in-the-world" is adding to "being." Are there people who are claiming that being(s) are or can somehow be not in (or of) the world?
  • Fooloso4
    1k
    I am willing to read Being and Time in a group type setting. Wake up!!Arne

    How do you propose we go about doing this? Begin at the beginning? With a particular section? Concept?
  • Norman Stone
    9
    I have read B&T (in English translation) a few times, and have slowly come to the conclusion that H was obsessed with death, and the roles of denial and awareness of death in the formation of concern (Sorge). His treatments of revealment and concealment echo several milestones, from Heraclitus to Berkeley to the phenomenon of quantum decoherence. But he, among all thinkers since Descartes, was hobbled by substance dualism; you don't have to be captured in its conceptual web to be stifled by its atmosphere of externalism, which we all must breathe.

    And by the way, Terrapin, being-in-the-world expresses the complementary ideas that being is the dynamic of experiencing, and that every aspect of experiencing is relatedness to the world (echoing Sartre's pour soi), though the not-taken-for-grantedness with which we approach being differs from the not-taken-for-grantedness with which we approach the world.

    Consider being-in-the-world as an interface that brings both being and the world forward, but not as an entity rattling about in a place where everything can be defined in stasis and in isolation. And yes, we can catch ourselves thinking of being as an entity, and the world as something given beforehand.
123456Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.