• Fooloso4
    595
    i don't know what you mean by reducing mowing the lawn to discourse.Joshs

    The argument put forward by Arne, if I understand him correctly, is that this activity must be understood as standing under state of mind, understanding, or discourse. He puts it under discourse.

    What is it you want mowing the lawn to be besides a signiicant meaning within a totality of relevance?Joshs

    Is a totality of relevance discourse?

    Are you arguing that when we articulate the meaning of mowing the lawn as ready to hand, this interpretation of the activity is a discursive treatment added onto beings which we initially encounter ?Joshs

    Beings which we initially encounter? Encounters of the third kind?

    Talking about mowing the lawn is discourse:

    Its constitutive factor are: what discourse is about (what is discussed), what is said as such, communication, and making known.Fooloso4

    In other words, that an initially objectively present world-stuff were ...Joshs

    You are stuffing straw, man.

    Without discourse, mowing the lawn has no meaning.Joshs

    Once again, it is through discourse that the meaning of mowing the lawn is disclosed. That does not mean that mowing the lawn is discourse.
  • Joshs
    685
    Once again, it is through discourse that the meaning of mowing the lawn is disclosed. That does not mean that mowing the lawn is discourse.Fooloso4

    How do you know that someone is mowing the lawn? Describe the ways of knowing that a lawn is being mowed(by someone else or by you), that don't involve taikng about it.

    Is a totality of relevance discourse?Fooloso4

    The articulation of a totality of relevance is discourse. "What is articulated in discoursing articulation as such, we call the totality of significations.(161)" Since all experiences are articulated in this way, all experiences are discursive(if discursive means articulating a totality of significations). If you prefer this to 'all experiences are discourse', then I'm fine with that.
  • I like sushi
    1.1k


    The traditional concept of reality for Heidegger (being in the sense of the pure, objective presence of things) is ontologically inadequate. So is the phenomenal concept of reality that Husserl advances, since it distinguishes indication from expression and posits a pure living present.

    Speaking on behalf of Husserl - if not Heidegger; but likely so - the point of phenomenology was to explore the subjective matter NOT to postulate objective claims of reality (that is the domain of the natural sciences). Husserl was attempting to give science a firming grounding against metaphysical ideas that bled into mystical mumbo jumbo.

    @Fooloso4
    As I read him, reality is phenomenal — Fooloso4

    Heidegger is slippery to say the least. Given that he hasn’t completely abandoned the founding premise of the phenomenological pursuit this cannot be true. It gets tricky if people start talking about different kinds of ‘reality’ - I’ve fallen foul of this easy cop-out too often myself! (Shame on me!)

    I’d say both Husserl and Heidegger fall prey to the pursuit of some ‘pure’ beingness ... if you know what I mean. I’d say the big difference is that Husserl was trying to establish a scientific perspective of subjectivity whilst Heidegger was focused in one a particular aspect of said subjectivity - the interpretive lingual aspects of how we frame ‘being’ and trying to capture what isn’t ‘thought’ in words in words; an obvious contradiction akin to the misconception of saying ‘I understand my unconscious content’ which is impossible as we’re not ‘conscious’ of the ‘unconscious’ yet have some appreciation of how such content presents itself ambiguously through conscious experience and analysis by way of hindsight and foresight.
  • Possibility
    209
    I think the idea is that our whole range of abilities to deal with the "equipment" of everyday life is itself a linguistically based discourse in the sense that we know and can say what the equipment is for (the "in-order-to") and what the roles and importance of its various functions in our lives is (the "for-the-sake-of-which").

    So, to use your particular example, the oven is in order to cook food, which obviously is for the sake of nutrition.
    Janus

    I’d have to agree with @Fooloso4, though - I don’t see this as necessarily discourse. It is entirely possible to succeed in baking the potato without being able to know or say what an oven is or what it’s for, let alone to know or say anything about nutrition. You could teach a chimpanzee to bake a potato or mow the lawn, for instance, and he could then carry out the exact same actions without too much trouble - would that be discourse?

    While I understand that the actions of turning the oven to 425 degrees and mowing the lawn could be discursive, I would think that in most situations they are not: one is not often explicitly articulating their understanding of either the in-order-to or the for-the-sake-of in performing these actions, unless they were doing so expressly for-the-sake-of being helpful, for instance.

    Perhaps, at best, they may be considered ‘idle talk’. This is Dasein’s everyday mode of being. Discourse, on the other hand, is a more authentic mode of being and involves interpretation - ‘taking something as’ - and then explicitly articulating that interpretation as a way of relating to others. This is not happening in these actions.

    Discourse doesn’t really come into the picture until the second part of B&T. @Arne’s explanation that Heidegger was talking about the ‘average everydayness’ refers to the first part, to readiness-at-hand for instance and other inauthentic modes of being - not to discourse.
  • Fooloso4
    595
    How do you know that someone is mowing the lawn? Describe the ways of knowing that a lawn is being mowed(by someone else or by you), that don't involve taikng about it.Joshs

    Okay, I am going to end this talk about mowing the lawn, but the lawn will still get mowed, if not by me then by someone else.

    Is a totality of relevance discourse?
    — Fooloso4

    The articulation of a totality of relevance is discourse.
    Joshs

    A totality of relevance and the articulation a totality of relevance are not the same. I do not see how it makes sense to say that mowing the lawn is the articulation of a totality of relevance when that articulation is about the totality. Mowing the lawn is something that occurs within that totality, not the articulation of that totality.
  • waarala
    25


    I’d have to agree with Fooloso4, though - I don’t see this as necessarily discourse. It is entirely possible to succeed in baking the potato without being able to know or say what an oven is or what it’s for, let alone to know or say anything about nutrition. You could teach a chimpanzee to bake a potato or mow the lawn, for instance, and he could then carry out the exact same actions without too much trouble - would that be discourse?Possibility


    Chimpanzees don't have "being-with" (which makes the activity or behavior to discourse, i think). So, other chimpanzees moving around the chimpanzee taught to bake don't have an understanding that there is a "baking" going on. That is, there is no effective discourse existing in that situation. Humans are in a world where there is "mowing the lawn" over there, "baking" over there, "nothing happens" over there, "something strange" over there etc etc. Every one basically "knows" what is happening. Every one is i n discourse. Chimpanzees are basically just feeling pleasure-unpleasure with regard to sensations. There is no "pleasurable b a k i n g", "unpleasurable m o w i n g the lawn". There is no such basic units of meaning in chimpanzees "world". It could be said that chimpanzees are governed by causality, not by discourse/sense. (Through the expression "causality" we try to give a certain sense to chimpanzees' nonsense random activity.)
123Next
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.