• Gregory
    1.7k


    I think from the parts of Being and Time which I was reading today he is implying that being gives rise to time, and time gives rise to space. We see the three aspects as one
  • Xtrix
    1.1k


    It's helpful to quote the text to support your interpretations. Honestly I don't see anything in Being and Time that implies any of this.
  • David Mo
    844
    Words, words, words.
  • David Mo
    844

    "What you claim is "perception," isn't."
    "No one is proposing a theory, certainly not a "subjective" theory."


    Heidegger: B&T:
    " The future is not later than having been, and having-been is not earlier than the Present."

    I am talking to my father about going to visit my mother's grave. There is an obvious irreversible time sequence. Anyone can perceive a similar one without the need for theories. Heidegger's claim that the future is primordial needs to be argued. One has the right to ask "Why?" But it would be absurd to ask for reasons that my mother's death is prior to the conversation that precedes the visit to her grave. This is how we perceive time directly. Without theories. So do you.
  • David Mo
    844
    Note: I mean with theory a system of ideas intended to explain something.

    Heidegger's work is a complex and confusing theory about being, time and the human being. He claims to be based on a pre-discursive knowledge, but even that is not evident, as I have just shown. The perception of time does not agree with essential points of Heidegger's theoretical analysis.
  • Gregory
    1.7k


    Heidegger's analysis is very death oriented. Maybe when your time is near it will make more sense. Not to be morbid..
  • tim wood
    5.3k
    Heidegger's analysis is very death oriented.Gregory
    Is not very death oriented. Is oriented - to the extent that it is so oriented - to the possibility of death, and what it means to be a person, dasein, that is going to die. Thus not about death itself at all, but about life. Maybe that's what you meant.
  • Gregory
    1.7k


    Ye. I was just referring to those parts where he says to contemplate your death and have it before your eyes so that you can live. Maybe there is something about death that changes how time s experienced.
  • Xtrix
    1.1k
    I am talking to my father about going to visit my mother's grave. There is an obvious irreversible time sequence.David Mo

    Yes, in talk and thought. No one is arguing otherwise.

    Anyone can perceive a similar one without the need for theories.David Mo

    In describing something, there is thinking and concepts involved. To argue this is "theory" is misleading. It is simply a common way of understanding and talking about the world -- as a sequence. But there is no "future" when you're at your mother's grave. When you're there, it'll be the present just as it is when you're talking about going.

    Heidegger's claim that the future is primordial needs to be argued.David Mo

    Temporality is primordial, not just the future.

    But it would be absurd to ask for reasons that my mother's death is prior to the conversation that precedes the visit to her grave.David Mo

    When does the memory of the death of your mother occur? In the past?
  • David Mo
    844

    "In describing something, there is thinking and concepts involved. To argue this is "theory" is misleading. It is simply a common way of understanding and talking about the world -- as a sequence".

    "When does the memory of the death of your mother occur? In the past?"

    If all perception includes theory, the pre-discursive knowledge that is the basis of Heidegger's theory and his critique of metaphysics and science is also theory. Everything is relative or subjective.
    You do not distinguish between talking about a person's death and that the person is dead. When did my mother's death occur? In my memory? Is my mother's death "theoretical"?

    Heidegger says that the future is the primordial existential ecstasis. I suggest you review your readings.
    The main reason is that the authenticity of the human being resides in the anticipatory resolution of being for death. But the mere concept of project already anticipates that priority of the future that gives meaning to the past.
    I'm surprised you don't know this.
  • Gregory
    1.7k
    Maybe JFK was killed in the future and true time is like a kaleidoscope. We line events up, but that could be how our intuition works at a normal speed
  • David Mo
    844
    In my opinion, Heidegger does not pretend that time forms an undifferentiated unit. The three ecstasies cannot be con-fused. What he affirms is their continuous interaction in lived time (temporality). This is a triviality. What seems more radical is to say that his interpretation of temporality is the authentic and original temporal mode. I have not seen Heidegger present any evidence of this. Nor have I seen it in the books and articles about him that I have consulted. Nor have you presented any evidence on his behalf. So we are talking about a dogma.
  • Gregory
    1.7k
    Ye, I concede that. He uses the word "ecstacy" to add excitement to the book and because it makes what he says sound more profound. He even used the word rapture as a synonym in my translation
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.