Heidegger calls "Dasein" an "existential title" - it is an objectivized form of the subject with strong connotations to Hegel. It is literally a "being there" and at it's core a reflection. — Heiko

Sure. But my point is that it was necessary for him to introduce such a term, to distinguish the meaning of being for the human from mere existence, in my view.

Do you think a fight between a rightwing supporter of Trump and a far left supporter of critical race theory occurs against the backdrop of overwhelming agreement about the world? — Joshs

Full responses will have to come later for me, but I can give you a quick idea of why I say 'yes' here with a joke:

"A conservative and a liberal pull into a gas station" -- I'm actually done already, but if you want more -- "and then do *exactly the same thing*." They'll both put the car in park, turn off the engine, get out, stick a card in the machine, put card back in wallet, pump gas, replace the gas cap, blah blah blah, even if one is headed to a Trump rally and the other to a Sanders rally. That's what I mean.

Sure. But my point is that it was necessary for him to introduce such a term, to distinguish the mode of being for the human from mere existence, in my view. — Wayfarer

But that is the point I do not buy exactly. As I read Hegel "Dasein" is just some "completely undetermined something" (for lack of better words). In my oppinion, the (only) thing that makes human Dasein special is that it determnines it's own being. Because of this, so I read his argument, we can not simply say "what Dasein is" but have to resort to such an "empty" "existantial title".

He was nevertheless obliged to call it out. Because, I contend, culture and philosophy had lost sight of the meaning of being.

He was nevertheless obliged to call it out. — Wayfarer

Correct.
In german, "Dasein" wrt to "human existence" has a strong connotation towards "poor"/"pittyful". Think "a human" losing all human qualities.

I don't think so. (Although maybe there's an echo of 'fallen' there.)

The Wiki entry says 'Dasein (German pronunciation: [ˈdaːzaɪn]) (sometimes spelled as Da-sein) is a German word that means "being there" or "presence" (German: da "there"; sein "to be"), and is often translated into English with the word "existence". It is a fundamental concept in the existential philosophy of Martin Heidegger. Heidegger uses the expression Dasein to refer to the experience of being that is peculiar to human beings. Thus it is a form of being that is aware of and must confront such issues as personhood, mortality and the dilemma or paradox of living in relationship with other humans while being ultimately alone with oneself.'

Is that wrong? Ought we to edit it?

sometimes spelled as Da-sein) is a German word that means "being there" or "presence" — Wayfarer

"I like to Watch"

Peter Sellers: Being There.

Or it can be what you see in a mirror. For me reflection is more like self-description, self-observation or anything where you are "your own object". You cannot write about yourself without reflecting. — Heiko

When you look in a mirror in order to reflect on yourself you are studying an object ( the image of yourself) and comparing it with your memory of another object( your recollection of your sense of your self. Here you’re using self to refer to some substantive thing in the world.


For Heidegger , the self isnt one object among others in the world. when you look in the mirror what you see is no more or less your ‘self’ than when you experience anything else in your world. Why is this? Because your ‘self’ consists of two indissociable features. First, it all of your past as a single unified totality of relevance as it participates in the present. Second , it is whatever you are experiencing in the world. What you are encountering makes a change in this past ‘self’ and that ‘being changed by’ is the only site of your ‘self’ for Heidegger. There is no self outside of this pairing. So reflection for him is not one self-object studying another self-object (the image in the mirror). The self is nothing but the way I myself
in the world.

The Dasein does not need a special kind of observation, nor does it need to conduct a sort of espionage on the ego in order to have the self; rather, as the Dasein gives itself over immediately and passionately to the world itself, its own self is reflected to it from things.”
— Joshs
So, which things, do you think, told Heidegger that about his Dasein? — Heiko

All things tell us about our Dasein , because Dasein is nothing outside of this ‘being thrown into things’. ‘Reflection’ is being changed by the world every moment.

Excellent example.

A film that should, along with Life of Brian, be watched once a year.

:ok:

a further note from the Wiki entry on Dasein:

Karl Jaspers' Dasein and Existenz

For Karl Jaspers, the term Dasein meant existence in its most minimal sense, the realm of objectivity and science, in opposition to what Jaspers called "Existenz", the realm of authentic being.[20]: 47  Due to the drastically different use of the term Dasein between the two philosophers, there is often some confusion in students who begin with either Heidegger or Jaspers and subsequently study the other.

In Philosophy (3 vols, 1932), Jaspers gave his view of the history of philosophy and introduced his major themes. Beginning with modern science and empiricism, Jaspers points out that as we question reality, we confront borders that an empirical (or scientific) method can simply not transcend. At this point, the individual faces a choice: sink into despair and resignation, or take a leap of faith toward what Jaspers calls "Transcendence". In making this leap, individuals confront their own limitless freedom, which Jaspers calls Existenz, and can finally experience authentic existence.

I note the 'sink into despair and resignation' option is quite a popular choice, however. :wink:

Is that wrong? Ought we to edit it? — Wayfarer

Why? I'd say that is correct. Heidegger uses the term throughout the book in the way he does. I just pointed out that he chose that term because it does not have any conrete determinations and not because he wanted it determined as human existence, if you understand.

They'll both put the car in park, turn off the engine, get out, stick a card in the machine, put card back in wallet, pump gas, replace the gas cap, blah blah blah, even if one is headed to a Trump rally and the other to a Sanders rally. That's what I mean — Srap Tasmaner

Exactly. And that’s what I mean by subordinate details of life that are informed , organized, guided and defined by the superordinate aims , goals, concerns and meanings that each of us carry with us each moment. Even the rituals surrounding pumping gas reflect the superordinate differences in worldview between people , but these activities are so general
as to mask those differences until an issue arises conceding how to fix a broken pump or something like
that.

I just pointed out that he chose that term because it does not have any conrete determinations and not because he wanted it determined as human existence, if you understand. — Heiko

So, are there beings other than human beings whose existence can be described in terms of 'dasein'?

As I read Hegel "Dasein" is just some "completely undetermined something" (for lack of better words). I — Heiko

That’s Hegel , not Heidegger. Big difference between the two here. Nothing undetermined about Heidegger’s Dasein.

When you look in a mirror in order to reflect on yourself you are studying an object ( the image of yourself) and comparing it with your memory of another object( your recollection of your sense of your self. — Joshs

Honestly, I do not see why you come up with memory in this context. If you say my intent to move, reflected by the mirror as movement, is just a memory of itself, then what is not memory? Do you mean to say I would not know where I am without memory? Maybe. But when I move my hand along the mirror and it's reflection also moves, where is memory involved? I see both things move simultanously.

That’s Hegel , not Heidegger. Big difference between the two here. Nothing undetermined about Heidegger’s Dasein. — Joshs

So... Heidegger says "We need to get rid of predeterminations and hence use the term 'Dasein'" that is a difference to Hegel?

So Heidegger was a determinist?

So... Heidegger says "We need to get rid of predeterminations and hence use the term 'Dasein'" that is a difference to Hegel — Heiko

A huge difference , when you add what else he says about Dasein.

So, are there beings other than human beings whose existence can be described in terms of 'dasein'? — Wayfarer

What do you mean? Heidegger describes human existence. It is purely speculative if such experience applies to other "things" (can apes lie?)
Hegel uses the term in the sense of undetermined matter, I guess, so this could be used for anything.

A huge difference , when you add what else he says about Dasein. — Joshs

But who was talking about that? We talked about the intention for chosing that term.

So Heidegger was a determinist — Wayfarer

Self is determined by its world , and the world ‘worlds’. That is, the world for me ( AS me) is an intricate unfolding of continuous change. There is no pre-determined plan for this unfolding It is not a dialectic.

But who was talking about that? We talked about the intention for chosing that term — Heiko

Being-there comes from being in the world. The central focus for Heidegger has always been Being. That is, a questioning of the word ‘is’ that we stick between subject and predicate as some sort of neutral glue.

Even the rituals surrounding pumping gas reflect the superordinate differences in worldview between people — Joshs

Except that they really don't seem to. You can work alongside someone for years, or see them at the grocery store every few days, and never have any idea what their political or religious (or ...) views are.

Yes, the same action can carry different meanings. It's one thing to throw a pitch during warm-up and another to throw it facing a batter.

Honestly, I do not see why you come up with memory in this context. — Heiko

My agreement here doesn’t rest on my sense of my self
being a memory. It could be a non-reflective intention. My point remains that you are treating ‘self’ here as an object in the world.

There is no pre-determined plan for this unfolding It is not a dialectic. — Joshs

Pre-determined is not the same as determined.

So, are there beings other than human beings whose existence can be described in terms of 'dasein'?
— Wayfarer

What do you mean? Heidegger describes human existence. — Heiko

My point, exactly. He has to use the term 'dasein' because 'existence' doesn't convey the correct meaning. Of course, the Wikipedia entry on 'dasein' says that dasein is 'usually translated into English as "existence"' - which makes the point yet again.

Yes, the same action can carry different meanings. — Srap Tasmaner

Three guys looking at a field. One is a real estate developer, one a cattle farmer, and one a geologist. Even though they're looking at the same scene, they all see different things, because they're looking at it from different perspectives. That's an analogy for the sense in which 'the world' is, for us, a construction, 'vorstellung' in Schopenhauer. Having insight into how we construct it is what wisdom is, according to him.

Yeah, I've read several of works beginning with I and Thou in the mid-80s. His 'dialogical existentialism' (I call it) very much influenced and lead me to the writings of Emmanuel Levinas and Abraham Heschel. IIRC, MLK, Jr was also influenced by Buber.

Pre-determined is not the same as determined. — Wayfarer

You’re right. ‘ Determined’ implies a notion of causality. Empirical causality , because it presupposes enduring, self-identical objects, allows for something to remain as itself throughout a series of changes. This is what allows for the translation of a causal sequence into a formula that predicts future outcomes. Heidegger abandons empirical causality in favor of a model in which causes
can only be determined by what is ahead of them , a d are altered by this interaction.

:up:

Being-there comes from being in the world. The central focus for Heidegger has always been Being. That is, a questioning of the word ‘is’ that we stick between subject and predicate as some sort of neutral glue. — Joshs

My point remains that you are treating ‘self’ here as an object in the world. — Joshs

Dasein has to be what it is. Whenever you determine something, it is and can only be an "object".
Heidegger said something about the very term "existence" meaning something like "standing out into being". You are right with Heidegger's focus: He is not primarily concerned with the being of Dasein, but asks more or less, why it is the way it is. Being has given itself the form of innerworldy Dasein. Why?

PS: The appropriate reply, for you, is of course: Because it _is_ innerworldy Dasein.

Even the rituals surrounding pumping gas reflect the superordinate differences in worldview between people
— Joshs

Except that they really don't seem to. You can work alongside someone for years, or see them at the grocery store every few days, and never have any idea what their political or religious (or ...) views are. — Srap Tasmaner

Getting back to the gas station example, notice what our empirically oriented way of thinking causes us to miss or tuck under the rug. When you and I go into a BP to fill our tanks, notice the difference in our ‘choreography’. My routine is different than yours. I pull in to the pump closer than you. I pick up the nozzle and hold it differently . I may purchase the gas using a different sequence than tou. We think of these behaviors of ‘use’ as peripheral to the objects that we both see Ao we speeder empirical object from our interactions with the object. Of course , Wittgenstein as well as Heidegger wouldn’t make such a separation. If I ask you not just i. general terms what one does when they fill their car with gas , but get i to these behavioral differences , they are sloughed off as irrelevant to the facts of filling a car with gas. If I then ask you what you think I might do when I leave the
gas station , and you know me only slightly, you will have no idea. Even if you know me well ther are many details of my day to day behaviors that you can’t anticipate but I can. So we treat these behaviors in a different category than what we mean by the facts of daily life(getting the train, working on the computer).

We put many behaviors into the category of randomness , whim, arbitrary desire. So when we say that we can be in overwhelming agreement about the ‘same’ world, we tacitly assume that the arbitrariness of behavior doesn’t count. It is instead built into the model of ‘agreement ‘.
This is not unlike the claim of a theory of everything in physics to be able to eventually model all future behavior on a computer( with limitations provided by quantum uncertainty).
The predictiveness that physicists pat themselves on the back for conveniently leaves out the mountains
of arbitrary randomness that is left unexplained in so many aspects of life. This is becuase the randomness is built into the model as a presumed
irreducible feature of the world rather than a limitation of
the theory.