As Friedman said, the corporation's only objective is to maximize profit. Our current age of a handful of multinational corporations owning nearly eve...
I think it's important to be rational when we can, despite most of our lives living fairly "irrationally." Rational planning out our lives and time, i...
This wouldn't be surprising, I suppose. If this is correct, I don't see why he calls common notions of time "inauthentic temporality" -- why not just ...
I've gone through his description of temporality, and I think it's quite accurate and, if you get into his terminology, quite elegant. His valid reaso...
Most of division II of Being and Time is dedicated to giving multiple "valid reasons," in fact. So you stick with Aristotle. Nothing wrong with that. ...
I'm not sure what postmodernism says, to be honest. I suspect, from my little reading, that it says very little. Well if he covers relativity somewher...
He's making a distinction between the present-at-hand, "objectively present" mode of being, the being of "objects" in our environment, and ourselves (...
No, because "inauthentic/authentic time" is meaningless. Heidegger rarely spoke about relativity. You'll have to provide some quotations, because I se...
Because the "terms" are based on no understanding of Heidegger's concepts, hence why I have to go back over and over to them. If you understood them, ...
Not really. Notice he doesn't mention temporality here. Being-towards-death is a separate, but related, issue. It's true that it deals with the future...
This "beholding" and "discovering" is related to aletheia, to unconcealedness, to "disclosure" or "open-ness" of the world. Remember this is what Heid...
Very true, but I was referring to: Whether Parmenides is part of the tradition of mistaking being for a being, or focusing entirely on "beings" (the o...
Begging the question. Dreams are real, in my view. They're just as much part of the world as anything else -- different than waking life, but certainl...
I didn't say mathematics is based on visualization or imagination. On the other hand, there are formal principles involved in vision as well -- yet wi...
Before continuing, I have to same I'm a little disappointed -- you seem to have avoided a large part of my post, which was aiming at understanding you...
Well what can I say? I'm glad you find this person a better communicator. I agree with the above wholeheartedly. No "vision" perhaps, but certainly th...
There's two claims here. 1) I agree time is not only present -- but I never claimed that. 2) I noticed you mentioned "does not pass" and "eternal immo...
I'm sure it appears that way. The reason it appears this way is that you don't understand what "presencing" means, in Heideggerian terminology. Presen...
That's not what was said. What you said: Parmenides thought that being is timeless. He "produced" this thought "outside of time." That's what you said...
Heidegger talks about the present-at-hand all over Being and Time. You have to read it to understand it. If you're looking for a place where he "defin...
I did; you haven't understood it. You accuse me and Heidegger of being "in the clouds," then go on to offer an analysis of these "clouds" which you ad...
I said it was due to time constraints. You asked what "presence-at-hand" means, which I've talked about before and which, had you read Heidegger, you'...
Says many other people who haven't read a word of Heidegger. I'll save intelligent people more time: before forming an opinion about a thinker, best t...
Presence-at-hand (Vorhandenheit) means the theoretical attitude we take when viewing the world, detached from everyday involvement and engagement. It'...
He does indeed interpret being in temporal terms -- not in the common understanding of "time," but in "presencing" (as Heidegger mentions) in terms of...
Peterson has no model of anything. It'll change as the wind blows. Total pseudo-intellectualism and charlatanism. Has many strident followers, I'm sur...
How do I determine that time is better spent doing something other than "debating" people on an Internet forum? Because I'm an adult. Take your Socrat...
:yawn: If you want to spend your time arguing with people about Jordan Peterson on an Internet forum, you're welcome to. Maybe little things like that...
You'll know when you see it. If you're not able to tell, then you're the one who can't think. There are no recipes or algorithms or equations to figur...
When he's talking to those who can think and hear. Also, it's a relative thing -- it may not be a complete waste to teach someone something for 10 yea...
Yes, as long as we don't make that the full time job. If we chase every crazy claim, "debating" and "refuting," etc., we go nowhere. It's best to have...
Maybe. But you could say the same about many other issues as well -- Creationism, QAnon conspiracies, 9/11 truthers, Anti-vaxxers, climate change deni...
Yes? I really don't see what you're driving at anymore. I think you can, yes. One may speak of an "understanding" of driving or hammering. To claim th...
Most people voted "don't care." You really should. The science is pretty clear about what humanity is facing, and it will effect all of us and all of ...
Thankfully, because I have read Being and Time multiple times, especially part 1, it's very easy for me to see -- without even looking at it -- that t...
Okay, I'll make it simple for you: No one is talking about "uniqueness." Absolutely no one. It wasn't mentioned here, it's not mentioned in Heidegger,...
Says the person who doesn't understand. How exactly you misinterpret this as going against what I was quoted saying above shows you really don't know ...
No, he doesn't. Nor does he interpret or define being. The "destiny of being" is meaningless until the context is provided. To believe Heidegger is tr...
Where does he "attribute to being" powers "beyond the natural" here? That's not what this passage says at all. It's hard to attribute anything to Bein...
Comments