Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The nonexistent 'Being' of Beings; meaning is ghost-like

Expand Messages
  • decker150
    There is a tautology in Heidegger which seems essential for his undertaking, to explain the meaning of Being. However, the Being of Beings does not appear
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      There is a tautology in Heidegger which seems essential for his
      undertaking, to explain the meaning of Being. However, the 'Being' of
      Beings does not appear to exist. I understand that beings such as a
      chair or rock are specific instances of Be-ing related to
      actual presence and appearance, but is the is-thereness
      of Dasein utterly dependent upon these objective forms (concretion)?
      In other words, if a chair is concretely present, then subsequently
      Being-in-itself is-there and comprehensible as Dasein. Heidegger was
      intrigued with the question, why is there something rather than
      nothing at all; from there Sartre took up the theme of nothingness.
      It seems that in Heidegger that Being-in-itself while never present in
      the sense of actually-appearing-there has this almost ghost like
      quality. Does someone have a explaination as to how we philosophically
      discuss something that is not actually there? Is this not the
      condition of faith and the spirituality of religion?

      If the Being of our being is not actually there, but turns out to be
      a major concern of existentialism, how is it that this ghost like
      dimension (the meaning of Being) has been raised to the
      attribution of being-there? I suspect that when I say "I am a man", I
      am not merely refering to the blood, bones, water, guts, organs and
      brain, but to this quinessential dimension of (Dasein) that is
      considered to be-there in an almost ghost-like way. The
      meaning of Da-sein includes this indefinable aspect as if it falls
      under the rubric of existentialism. It certainly did especially as
      the concept of essence, which was expounded by Sartre to be the one we
      create by the choices we make in the unfolding the future and
      encountering our own possibilities. Yet, even if this is so, that we
      are constructing our own essence as experiences unfold and permit,
      this still does not clarify what the essence 'is' of Dasein and it's
      strange dynamic capacity to achieve a-priori process and novelty in
      which one essence pairs up and gains a relational pathway to all
      the other essences; for example, out of 600,000 words, how can it be
      spontaneoulsy gathered in a rhapsodic variety of syntax possibilities
      and come together by the power of will to form coherent meaningful
      structures? And then change again in a thousand other viral forms to
      create and recreate new movements within the cogitos? Why is meaning
      so important to Dasein, such that 'meaning-itself' charges and excites
      even the philosophers quest. Where would we be without meaning-itself
      and all these infinite reconfigurations possible as a-prior
      creations? Certainly, had we not expounded the 'meaning of Being' as
      Heidegger and Sartre, the whole culture might have ended up stupified
      like a rock.

      I am of the opinion that one cannot set out to explain the meaning of
      Being, by taking meaning-itself for granted. Another tautology; what
      is the meaning of meaning (theory of meaning)? Nor do I think that
      meaning is thrown off to linguistic studies or lexical semantics.
      Descartes Cosgitos Ergo Sum started by its primary focus upon the
      cogitos, which was reversed by the existential movement to prioritize
      the 'Sum' before all else. Thinking and meaning has been minimized as
      the superfulous activity of the existential condition, which is why
      all things having to do with meaning are cast into
      secondary status. Existentialism grounds itself mainly in the
      'immediacy perception' where as the powerful tide of the cogitos
      (thinking in general - the philospophers general preoccupation))has
      been thrown toward 'meaning perception'. We may philosophize about a
      hammer, but the hammer is not spirited away by us.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.