Assuming MH takes the position above, including the example about stone, lets make it his own, why is it we must view MH as describing the Reality (of) such entities; I.e. a stone coming at me as present to hand or ready to hand, as if these are the Real natures of the stone? — ENOAH
I suggest it would be more helpful to describe him as presenting an interpretation — Ludwig V
And yet, there is no existence, no present to hand or ready to hand without Being. — Joshs
And yet, there is no existence, no present to hand or ready to hand without Being. — Joshs
There are the modes of being, so we need to understand, not only the three modes, but what they are modes of? — Ludwig V
We have existence, ready-to-hand, present-at-hand and being. The last of these is common to the other three — Ludwig V
"Constitutive" is an interesting idea here. Aristotle draws a distinction (I don't have a reference ready to hand) between components of something that have an independent existence and can actually be separated out - laid on a bench beside each other, for example - and components that cannot be separated out, except "in thought". So, we can think of a single shape as both convex or concave, and we cannot think of a concave shape, without also thinking of a convex shape. I can see the relationship between existence and Dasein in the latter way rather than the former. Does that capture what you are saying? — Ludwig V
What I find much more helpful is his conceptions of Ready-to-hand and Present-at-hand and some of his remarks about rivers, bridges, temples in a landscape. Yet even there, I have difficulty. I don't quite see why everything that exists must be one or the other. — Ludwig V
Nonetheless, if you describe what Heidegger presents as a description, you allow the question of truth or falsity to arise. — Ludwig V
I'd like to understand that notion, cuz I think that's the only thing we can really do on a philosophy forum -- understand one another. — Moliere
without being bound to your word, who knows what is going to come out of your mouth. — Antony Nickles
The biggest problem is that it is so speculative, with no real clear evidence, which is why so many people do not believe in an afterlife at all, — Jack Cummins
As such, I argue that, given certain premises in this post, we should expect an afterlife that plays closer to our ideals than the aforementioned bottomless pit of fire - or an arbitrary eternity in heaven. — ToothyMaw
I think I understand the rest of what you say. But this suggests to me that applying any entity having the characteristics of Dasein will cause that entity to exist. ??? — Ludwig V
acknowledges only three modes of being, one of which is true of everything that is. (Is that the right word to use here?
That's makes it all clear enough. Take it or leave it. — Ludwig V
Assuming we allow every other philosopher the same license, it seems that each philosophy exists in its own silo. How does an outsider choose between them? On grounds of internal consistency? Is that enough? — Ludwig V
if we have anonymity, we don’t have any incentive to check ourselves — Antony Nickles
I suspect we will probably have to wait for 'AGI' to decide for itself whether or not to self-impose moral norms and/or legal constraints and what kind of ethics and/or laws it may create for itself – superceding human ethics & legal theories? – if it decides it needs them in order to 'optimally function' within (or without) human civilization. — 180 Proof
But if it is a truly moral situation, we do not know what to do and no one has more authority to say what is right, so without the (predetermined, certain) means to judge what “acting poorly” in this situation would be. But AI cannot hold itself up as an example in stepping forward into the unknown in the way a person can. Or run from such a moment; could we even say: cowardly? — Antony Nickles
In moral philosophy, historically there was a desire to externalize ethical behavior to make it determined, like a law—even if just a law I give myself (with Kant). . .
Now I’m not an AI expert, but we can’t seem to create rules or goals because AI is too unpredictable (and we want rules to tell us what will be right). — Antony Nickles
I wish it could be abolished in favour of "there is". But it would make it a lot harder to formulate a lot of philosophy. Perhaps that's a good thing. — Ludwig V
I'm clutching at straws here. At first sight, you may be saying that existence is the "is" in any predicate.
Do you mean something like "existence is the possibility of attaching any predicate to something" or maybe something along the lines that if you apply any predicate to something, that something exists. — Ludwig V
Does that mean that Dasein is the only thing that exists? — Ludwig V
Thinking about it, I'm inclined to understand Sartre's "precedes" as a metaphor; — Ludwig V
I've always wondered whether the Kantian claim that existence is not a predicate is consistent with the way that we talk about essence and existence in the context of existentialism. I can't believe that either Heidegger or Sartre were unaware of Kant. Are they contradicting him? — Ludwig V
On the contrary: if determinism is true, then we are determined to assign moral culpability to everyone — 180 Proof
How do you know this to be true? — Truth Seeker
So you're more saying "these are not fundamental" -- which I hope you see we agree on. — Moliere
I was caught up on the notion that Sartre misinterprets Heidegger. — Moliere
someone who is trying to understand all that is existentialism — Rob J Kennedy
I don't think it's a misinterpretation -- at least no more a misinterpretation than what Heidegger does with Aletheia; the man got criticized for not representing the notion historically correctly, — Moliere
WHAT is known of stillness — Kizzy
Free will and choice are the only essence in existence. We make far too much of some things. But it is true that evolution drives the formation, the integration, of entities with more and more moral agency. — Chet Hawkins
INSTEAD OF that fish making the same effort. — Chet Hawkins
eventually, though, they do react, and space, and particles, etc. came to be, with time still existing from the original set. — 013zen
you implied that Dasein was reserved for humans — Chet Hawkins
Why say that? I am not pretending to be Heidegger. That's a very confusing reply. — Chet Hawkins
YES there are! That is the metaphysical hurdle we are just beginning to come to grips with as a species. Granted a few of us have always been a bit saucy and into caviar of the spirit, wisdom. But these days the love of wisdom is being translated into 'My self-indulgent grift for the unwary' — Chet Hawkins
I agree. But Heidegger's concern is to describe the only entity that any of us really can describe from the inside, ourselves. If it turned out that some other species had the characteristics of Dasein, Heidegger would probably find it interesting but it would make no difference to his philosophy as set out in Being and Time. If some unknown species anywhere in the universe had the characteristics of Dasein, then they would be "in" the world.
— Arne
I mean ... it's confusing that you say this. You say you agree and then disagree. — Chet Hawkins
What I consider to be most stupid is when people are completely off-topic, or when I am not able to figure out a coherent argument from what they have written. Maybe pointing out the behavior that I didn't like made people self-conscious and not post those things. — Brendan Golledge
But most philosophers use that word, Dasein, in a selfish way to show humans as some sort of unique entity. I claim they/we are only a natural and inevitable progression of essence from the beginning of time and natural law. — Chet Hawkins
The solution to this problem is to posit that something has always existed since nothing is impossible. — kindred
To me, the truth is objective, by objective I mean it does not depend on the mind so mathematical theorems are valid even if there is no man who could deduce or know them. — MoK