Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

The Concept of Time by Heidegger

Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 8:26:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Having failed miserably less that fifty pages inside Sein und Zunt (Being and Time) a few years ago I decided to now try and tackle Heidegger's easier, simpler written History of the Concept of Time. I have to say while it may not be easy, it is intelligible and it does pay off.

It was in Heidegger's own words his prototype or draft of Being and Time. Since, unlike Kant or Hegel, Heidegger admits to being purposely difficult this draft is free from any language jokes, poetic lines, or Heideggerianism.

In any case Heidegger outlines three things which he wishes to show to us through this book. Before that however lets take some history on what Heidegger was doing and what thesis he reached.

Heidegger had been investing great time into Ontology and Phenomenology, he had also been in communication with two other philosophers he greatly admired: Dithley and Yorck. Now while taking their philosophy (which aimed to find the grounding of Being) Heidegger came up with the term Dasein or Is-ness. In this draft it is clear that Heidegger is excited on his new found discovery. Mainly that temporalness and historicity are the key to Dasein, the ontic of Dasein (ontic is a word Heidegger made to show the Ontology of Ontology. The ontic of Dasein is the Ontology of the Ontology of Dasein.), and the Ontology of the world.

Having reached the conclusion that Being depends on Is-ness Heidegger sets off to do three things: to deconstruct any metaphysics forgetful of Time, even if it does follow a certain form of temporalness, mainly presencing. This means that Heidegger seeks to make God and such phenomenon redundant by answering the question: What it means to Be? and to then show that this God cannot Be. Though God is rarely so expressly (until now anyways) brought up in Heidegger. Heidegger has higher ambitions, to take down the entire system of such Metaphysics as a whole.

Secondly Heidegger seeks to find an outline of Dasein in relation to temporalness, and therefore comes to the conclusion of an absolute Time. This I have not yet read in much detail, it is to come later. Lastly Heidegger seeks to establish that the hermenuetic (interpretory) situation of of everything, including this interpretation of Ontology is itself grounded in temporalness and historicity.

I can tell you that it is NOT an easy read, it makes my head hurt, and I think it made my hair even grayer. Also I do think Heidegger is out dated since his system was based on absolute Time, yet his view of looking at Ontology, his method, his strange ways at examining Objects and their Being is interesting and rewarding.

I hope to finish reading soon, however this is a side book. It takes too much energy and so I devote myself to reading only a page or two of this book while looking at The Laws of Plato and The Anatomy of Violence by Adrian Raine more properly.

However it is an interesting discussion, no? We know that Being cannot be based on Is-ness because "Is" as relativity would reveal is not an absolute concept. It then leaves the question: what is Being based on?

For those who believe in God this question would remain unanswered at its fundamental level, for one cannot answer what God's Ontology is based on. Himself? It is a confusing and paralyzing place. Any answer as Kant would say, for me at least, would be speculative. I have no however read Hegel's Phenomenology so I do not know.

So community of debate.org here are some good questions: do you buy that Being can be based on Time? If not what is it based on at its most fundamental level: one could say that man is based on soul, and soul God (as Heidegger went from Man to Historicity to Temporalness to Time) but then that would be speculative? Do you think assuming a God we can ever know? If God does not exist, then what is it based on? Does Ontology need an absolute support?

Perhaps God could be based on Himself, if God is absolute then it is possible. These are all very interesting questions, and I thought them worthy enough to raise, thank you for reading.

Ajab
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 8:32:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 8:26:02 AM, Ajabi wrote:
Having failed miserably less that fifty pages inside Sein und Zunt (Being and Time) a few years ago I decided to now try and tackle Heidegger's easier, simpler written History of the Concept of Time. I have to say while it may not be easy, it is intelligible and it does pay off.

It was in Heidegger's own words his prototype or draft of Being and Time. Since, unlike Kant or Hegel, Heidegger admits to being purposely difficult this draft is free from any language jokes, poetic lines, or Heideggerianism.

In any case Heidegger outlines three things which he wishes to show to us through this book. Before that however lets take some history on what Heidegger was doing and what thesis he reached.

Heidegger had been investing great time into Ontology and Phenomenology, he had also been in communication with two other philosophers he greatly admired: Dithley and Yorck. Now while taking their philosophy (which aimed to find the grounding of Being) Heidegger came up with the term Dasein or Is-ness. In this draft it is clear that Heidegger is excited on his new found discovery. Mainly that temporalness and historicity are the key to Dasein, the ontic of Dasein (ontic is a word Heidegger made to show the Ontology of Ontology. The ontic of Dasein is the Ontology of the Ontology of Dasein.), and the Ontology of the world.

Having reached the conclusion that Being depends on Is-ness Heidegger sets off to do three things: to deconstruct any metaphysics forgetful of Time, even if it does follow a certain form of temporalness, mainly presencing. This means that Heidegger seeks to make God and such phenomenon redundant by answering the question: What it means to Be? and to then show that this God cannot Be. Though God is rarely so expressly (until now anyways) brought up in Heidegger. Heidegger has higher ambitions, to take down the entire system of such Metaphysics as a whole.

Secondly Heidegger seeks to find an outline of Dasein in relation to temporalness, and therefore comes to the conclusion of an absolute Time. This I have not yet read in much detail, it is to come later. Lastly Heidegger seeks to establish that the hermenuetic (interpretory) situation of of everything, including this interpretation of Ontology is itself grounded in temporalness and historicity.

I can tell you that it is NOT an easy read, it makes my head hurt, and I think it made my hair even grayer. Also I do think Heidegger is out dated since his system was based on absolute Time, yet his view of looking at Ontology, his method, his strange ways at examining Objects and their Being is interesting and rewarding.

I hope to finish reading soon, however this is a side book. It takes too much energy and so I devote myself to reading only a page or two of this book while looking at The Laws of Plato and The Anatomy of Violence by Adrian Raine more properly.

However it is an interesting discussion, no? We know that Being cannot be based on Is-ness because "Is" as relativity would reveal is not an absolute concept. It then leaves the question: what is Being based on?

For those who believe in God this question would remain unanswered at its fundamental level, for one cannot answer what God's Ontology is based on. Himself? It is a confusing and paralyzing place. Any answer as Kant would say, for me at least, would be speculative. I have no however read Hegel's Phenomenology so I do not know.

So community of debate.org here are some good questions: do you buy that Being can be based on Time? If not what is it based on at its most fundamental level: one could say that man is based on soul, and soul God (as Heidegger went from Man to Historicity to Temporalness to Time) but then that would be speculative? Do you think assuming a God we can ever know? If God does not exist, then what is it based on? Does Ontology need an absolute support?

Perhaps God could be based on Himself, if God is absolute then it is possible. These are all very interesting questions, and I thought them worthy enough to raise, thank you for reading.

Ajab

Something that might be worth thinking about in Heidegger is the fact that he was a Nazi activist. That puts a damper on his philosophy in my opinion. I'd be interesting to see where in his philosophy he went wrong that could lead him to such immoral opinions.
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 8:50:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 8:32:16 AM, kbub wrote:
Something that might be worth thinking about in Heidegger is the fact that he was a Nazi activist. That puts a damper on his philosophy in my opinion. I'd be interesting to see where in his philosophy he went wrong that could lead him to such immoral opinions.

That is absolutely absurd. He may have been a Nazi activist but then he did not write about Ethics, he wrote about Being. Why should that correlate to the fact that he was a brilliant man, and that he gave an amazing insight into Ontology and Ontics? I am sorry but I find this statement quite absurd. I do not however want to debate this here, this thread should talk about Heidegger's theories, and Ontology.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 11:04:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 8:32:16 AM, kbub wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:26:02 AM, Ajabi wrote:
Having failed miserably less that fifty pages inside Sein und Zunt (Being and Time) a few years ago I decided to now try and tackle Heidegger's easier, simpler written History of the Concept of Time. I have to say while it may not be easy, it is intelligible and it does pay off.

It was in Heidegger's own words his prototype or draft of Being and Time. Since, unlike Kant or Hegel, Heidegger admits to being purposely difficult this draft is free from any language jokes, poetic lines, or Heideggerianism.

In any case Heidegger outlines three things which he wishes to show to us through this book. Before that however lets take some history on what Heidegger was doing and what thesis he reached.

Heidegger had been investing great time into Ontology and Phenomenology, he had also been in communication with two other philosophers he greatly admired: Dithley and Yorck. Now while taking their philosophy (which aimed to find the grounding of Being) Heidegger came up with the term Dasein or Is-ness. In this draft it is clear that Heidegger is excited on his new found discovery. Mainly that temporalness and historicity are the key to Dasein, the ontic of Dasein (ontic is a word Heidegger made to show the Ontology of Ontology. The ontic of Dasein is the Ontology of the Ontology of Dasein.), and the Ontology of the world.

Having reached the conclusion that Being depends on Is-ness Heidegger sets off to do three things: to deconstruct any metaphysics forgetful of Time, even if it does follow a certain form of temporalness, mainly presencing. This means that Heidegger seeks to make God and such phenomenon redundant by answering the question: What it means to Be? and to then show that this God cannot Be. Though God is rarely so expressly (until now anyways) brought up in Heidegger. Heidegger has higher ambitions, to take down the entire system of such Metaphysics as a whole.

Secondly Heidegger seeks to find an outline of Dasein in relation to temporalness, and therefore comes to the conclusion of an absolute Time. This I have not yet read in much detail, it is to come later. Lastly Heidegger seeks to establish that the hermenuetic (interpretory) situation of of everything, including this interpretation of Ontology is itself grounded in temporalness and historicity.

I can tell you that it is NOT an easy read, it makes my head hurt, and I think it made my hair even grayer. Also I do think Heidegger is out dated since his system was based on absolute Time, yet his view of looking at Ontology, his method, his strange ways at examining Objects and their Being is interesting and rewarding.

I hope to finish reading soon, however this is a side book. It takes too much energy and so I devote myself to reading only a page or two of this book while looking at The Laws of Plato and The Anatomy of Violence by Adrian Raine more properly.

However it is an interesting discussion, no? We know that Being cannot be based on Is-ness because "Is" as relativity would reveal is not an absolute concept. It then leaves the question: what is Being based on?

For those who believe in God this question would remain unanswered at its fundamental level, for one cannot answer what God's Ontology is based on. Himself? It is a confusing and paralyzing place. Any answer as Kant would say, for me at least, would be speculative. I have no however read Hegel's Phenomenology so I do not know.

So community of debate.org here are some good questions: do you buy that Being can be based on Time? If not what is it based on at its most fundamental level: one could say that man is based on soul, and soul God (as Heidegger went from Man to Historicity to Temporalness to Time) but then that would be speculative? Do you think assuming a God we can ever know? If God does not exist, then what is it based on? Does Ontology need an absolute support?

Perhaps God could be based on Himself, if God is absolute then it is possible. These are all very interesting questions, and I thought them worthy enough to raise, thank you for reading.

Ajab

Something that might be worth thinking about in Heidegger is the fact that he was a Nazi activist. That puts a damper on his philosophy in my opinion. I'd be interesting to see where in his philosophy he went wrong that could lead him to such immoral opinions.

Ad hominem fallacy.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 12:57:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 11:04:22 AM, n7 wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:32:16 AM, kbub wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:26:02 AM, Ajabi wrote:
Having failed miserably less that fifty pages inside Sein und Zunt (Being and Time) a few years ago I decided to now try and tackle Heidegger's easier, simpler written History of the Concept of Time. I have to say while it may not be easy, it is intelligible and it does pay off.

It was in Heidegger's own words his prototype or draft of Being and Time. Since, unlike Kant or Hegel, Heidegger admits to being purposely difficult this draft is free from any language jokes, poetic lines, or Heideggerianism.

In any case Heidegger outlines three things which he wishes to show to us through this book. Before that however lets take some history on what Heidegger was doing and what thesis he reached.

Heidegger had been investing great time into Ontology and Phenomenology, he had also been in communication with two other philosophers he greatly admired: Dithley and Yorck. Now while taking their philosophy (which aimed to find the grounding of Being) Heidegger came up with the term Dasein or Is-ness. In this draft it is clear that Heidegger is excited on his new found discovery. Mainly that temporalness and historicity are the key to Dasein, the ontic of Dasein (ontic is a word Heidegger made to show the Ontology of Ontology. The ontic of Dasein is the Ontology of the Ontology of Dasein.), and the Ontology of the world.

Having reached the conclusion that Being depends on Is-ness Heidegger sets off to do three things: to deconstruct any metaphysics forgetful of Time, even if it does follow a certain form of temporalness, mainly presencing. This means that Heidegger seeks to make God and such phenomenon redundant by answering the question: What it means to Be? and to then show that this God cannot Be. Though God is rarely so expressly (until now anyways) brought up in Heidegger. Heidegger has higher ambitions, to take down the entire system of such Metaphysics as a whole.

Secondly Heidegger seeks to find an outline of Dasein in relation to temporalness, and therefore comes to the conclusion of an absolute Time. This I have not yet read in much detail, it is to come later. Lastly Heidegger seeks to establish that the hermenuetic (interpretory) situation of of everything, including this interpretation of Ontology is itself grounded in temporalness and historicity.

I can tell you that it is NOT an easy read, it makes my head hurt, and I think it made my hair even grayer. Also I do think Heidegger is out dated since his system was based on absolute Time, yet his view of looking at Ontology, his method, his strange ways at examining Objects and their Being is interesting and rewarding.

I hope to finish reading soon, however this is a side book. It takes too much energy and so I devote myself to reading only a page or two of this book while looking at The Laws of Plato and The Anatomy of Violence by Adrian Raine more properly.

However it is an interesting discussion, no? We know that Being cannot be based on Is-ness because "Is" as relativity would reveal is not an absolute concept. It then leaves the question: what is Being based on?

For those who believe in God this question would remain unanswered at its fundamental level, for one cannot answer what God's Ontology is based on. Himself? It is a confusing and paralyzing place. Any answer as Kant would say, for me at least, would be speculative. I have no however read Hegel's Phenomenology so I do not know.

So community of debate.org here are some good questions: do you buy that Being can be based on Time? If not what is it based on at its most fundamental level: one could say that man is based on soul, and soul God (as Heidegger went from Man to Historicity to Temporalness to Time) but then that would be speculative? Do you think assuming a God we can ever know? If God does not exist, then what is it based on? Does Ontology need an absolute support?

Perhaps God could be based on Himself, if God is absolute then it is possible. These are all very interesting questions, and I thought them worthy enough to raise, thank you for reading.

Ajab

Something that might be worth thinking about in Heidegger is the fact that he was a Nazi activist. That puts a damper on his philosophy in my opinion. I'd be interesting to see where in his philosophy he went wrong that could lead him to such immoral opinions.

Ad hominem fallacy.

No thoughts? :P
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 3:31:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 8:26:02 AM, Ajabi wrote:


So community of debate.org here are some good questions: do you buy that Being can be based on Time?

No. "Being" is the most fundamental attribute, since it is necessarily present in any concept. That is, every concept -including time - must be expressed in terms of it (including "being" itself). Thus, no concept can serve as its basis, since it would require a functional definition of "being" in order to be defined and referred to.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 4:56:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 3:31:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:26:02 AM, Ajabi wrote:


So community of debate.org here are some good questions: do you buy that Being can be based on Time?


No. "Being" is the most fundamental attribute, since it is necessarily present in any concept. That is, every concept -including time - must be expressed in terms of it (including "being" itself). Thus, no concept can serve as its basis, since it would require a functional definition of "being" in order to be defined and referred to.

Ironically this is actually something later Heidegger talked a lot about.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 7:50:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 4:56:15 AM, Sargon wrote:
At 8/28/2014 3:31:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:26:02 AM, Ajabi wrote:


So community of debate.org here are some good questions: do you buy that Being can be based on Time?


No. "Being" is the most fundamental attribute, since it is necessarily present in any concept. That is, every concept -including time - must be expressed in terms of it (including "being" itself). Thus, no concept can serve as its basis, since it would require a functional definition of "being" in order to be defined and referred to.

Ironically this is actually something later Heidegger talked a lot about.

I plan on reading him after I finish with A Treatise of Human Nature (thanks to Ajabi for recommending it...it's phenomenal).
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2014 9:20:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes, I think being is based on time. I haven't read the book though.

If you mean being as awareness of being, it requires memory of existence and anticipation of existence both of which are time-based.
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 6:17:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 3:31:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:26:02 AM, Ajabi wrote:


So community of debate.org here are some good questions: do you buy that Being can be based on Time?


No. "Being" is the most fundamental attribute, since it is necessarily present in any concept. That is, every concept -including time - must be expressed in terms of it (including "being" itself). Thus, no concept can serve as its basis, since it would require a functional definition of "being" in order to be defined and referred to.

This seems to assume that all Being is one. That is incorrect. While Being is a fundamental property and its study is called Ontology, there is always an ontic to our Being. That which connects all temporal Being to a solid absoluteness (for Hegel God) which for Heidegger is Time.

So our Being would be based on another Being and so on and so forth until we reach the True Being or an Absolute Being. For Heidegger this was Time.

I personally believe it is God, connected by the Spirit.
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 6:21:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 4:56:15 AM, Sargon wrote:
At 8/28/2014 3:31:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:26:02 AM, Ajabi wrote:


So community of debate.org here are some good questions: do you buy that Being can be based on Time?


No. "Being" is the most fundamental attribute, since it is necessarily present in any concept. That is, every concept -including time - must be expressed in terms of it (including "being" itself). Thus, no concept can serve as its basis, since it would require a functional definition of "being" in order to be defined and referred to.

Ironically this is actually something later Heidegger talked a lot about.

For Heidegger it was different. Taking from Hegel when he says: all finite existence is non existence, Heidegger determined that all finite Being must depend on a greater Being. The study of the Being of the Being he named Onticology, the study that of Ontic.

For Heidegger then man, when we say I am, I mean so by historicity. When you say Ajab is, it is only through history. I am existing through Time, I am a historical Being. My Being is historical. Therefore the ontic of human being, for Heidegger, was historicity.

Now historicity. What is it? It is the passing of time, giving a brilliant argument Heidegger states that the ontic of historicity is temporalness. Then he says the ontic of temporalness is Time, therefore grounding human Being is grounded in Time.

Heidegger ends by showing that Time is grounded in itself, so the Being of Time is fundamental connective of all Being.
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 6:22:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/1/2014 9:20:39 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Yes, I think being is based on time. I haven't read the book though.

If you mean being as awareness of being, it requires memory of existence and anticipation of existence both of which are time-based.

This would be wrong since Time is not absolute, it is rather illusory.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 11:45:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 6:17:44 AM, Ajabi wrote:
At 8/28/2014 3:31:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/28/2014 8:26:02 AM, Ajabi wrote:


So community of debate.org here are some good questions: do you buy that Being can be based on Time?


No. "Being" is the most fundamental attribute, since it is necessarily present in any concept. That is, every concept -including time - must be expressed in terms of it (including "being" itself). Thus, no concept can serve as its basis, since it would require a functional definition of "being" in order to be defined and referred to.

This seems to assume that all Being is one. That is incorrect. While Being is a fundamental property and its study is called Ontology, there is always an ontic to our Being. That which connects all temporal Being to a solid absoluteness (for Hegel God) which for Heidegger is Time.

So our Being would be based on another Being and so on and so forth until we reach the True Being or an Absolute Being. For Heidegger this was Time.

I personally believe it is God, connected by the Spirit.

I don't understand. First you say that all being isn't one, and then say it is all God.

All being must be one, since an absolute distinction between two "beings" would require a more fundamental "being" in order for them to be kept apart (distinguished). That is, if the difference between two beings is real, then there must be a more fundamental "being" according to which their difference is real, and applied to both lesser beings.