A couple of us decided to read

budaatum:
Martin Heidegger's Being and Time.

Download here if you want to read along.

But we are struggling because its very way over our heads. I haven't even got to the end of the forward despite starting three times!

kkins25:
i downloaded the book but couldn't go past two pages.. The whole concepts and lingo are really heavy. I was turning to and fro on my bed trying to process just a few sentences. But its table of contents has been sparking curiosity in me so i know im definitely not going to have peace of mind till i read the book. Lol.

So we decided we'd start a thread to see if any one would help us slog through it or has slogged through it already to help with understanding.

Heidegger, in his 1926 book, seems to be trying to establish what is meant by "being", which in my much very untutored understanding sounds like, "What does it mean when we say a thing exists"? He appears to be saying, "being" has been assumed without an understanding of existence and attempts to make one aware of the fact so we can transcend our ignorance. If and how he does that is what by reading one might find out.

I've posted this here in the religious section, not because it's religious, but because there is no Philosophy Section and Religion is the closest to it. This is however strictly not about "beliefs", but about understanding what one reads, so let us please beware of the narrowness of our minds.

budaatum:
but because there is no Philosophy Section

Seun you hear? Create a Philosophy sub.

i tried again yesterday, but not the book, rather i read the essay you shared along with the book. even that still leaves me scrolling up and down.
its a really complex(if this word is even suitable to describe it) concept or should i say philosophy. i've been wondering if he came to conclusion. I must mention that some of the ideology is very similar to what i've read from Jane Roberts "Seth materials". That is, the ideology of conscious particles or more simply, atoms.
I wonder if Martin would mention the weird nature of atomic particles to take shape or should i say take a definable, somewhat- at least to the human mind- an organized structure like as if they have been programmed with some sought of code, so much so that they is a particular principle the atoms or particles follow which guides their activities. if i had being born in a more conducive environment i think Philosophy would have being my chosen profession. if i can even call it a profession.

kkins25:
i tried again yesterday, but not the book, rather i read the essay you shared along with the book. even that still leaves me scrolling up and down.
its a really complex(if this word is even suitable to describe it) concept or should i say philosophy. i've been wondering if he came to conclusion. I must mention that some of the ideology is very similar to what i've read from Jane Roberts "Seth materials". That is, the ideology of conscious particles or more simply, atoms.
I wonder if Martin would mention the weird nature of atomic particles to take shape or should i say take a definable, somewhat- at least to the human mind- an organized structure like as if they have been programmed with some sought of code, so much so that they is a particular principle the atoms or particles follow which guides their activities. if i had being born in a more conducive environment i think Philosophy would have being my chosen profession. if i can even call it a profession.

I'm still struggling with the 9 page Forward by Taylor Carman (its not in epub version) wondering if I'm really understanding this despite, or perhaps, because of the profoundity of the simple bits! This review probably describes not us, who might be biting at far more than we can chew, but already see reward you! We might, as you've done, found similarities much easier to read!

I'm finishing the forward today! I insist!

budaatum:

I'm still struggling with the 9 page Forward by Taylor Carman (its not in epub version) wondering if I'm really understanding this despite, or perhaps, because of the profoundity of the simple bits! This review probably describes not us, who might be biting at far more than we can chew, but already see reward you! We might, as you've done, found similarities much easier to read!

I'm finishing the forward today! I insist!

My thinking is, No Creation can can Sufficiently and Completely describe and Explain himself beyond what he has seen or known or experienced.

And neither can one creation explain all these things to another.

Just like no matter how much Prado and Camry and Corolla know, they can not know more than what they have experienced, neither can they be good Authorities to describe and explain the Nature and Conduct of their Creator, Mr Toyoda!

So it is with man.

My respectful view and opinion!

Dtruthspeaker:


My thinking is, No Creation can can Sufficiently and Completely describe and Explain himself beyond what he has seen or known or experienced.

And neither can one creation explain all these things to another.

Just like no matter how much Prado and Camry and Corolla, they can not know more than what they have experienced, neither can they be good Authorities to describe and explain the Nature and Conduct of their Creator, Mr Toyoda!

So it is with man.

My respectful view and opinion!

I totally agree with you. Its why we benefit from considering all the isSufficient and inComplete descriptions so as to be better informed than those who obey commands to eat stones.

I've looked at the epub version I signposted above. It came from here, but does not seem like a very good copy, so if anyone can help find an improvement.

The pdf is much better, I think.

budaatum:

I totally agree with you. Its why we benefit from considering all the isSufficient and inComplete descriptions so as to be better informed than those who obey commands to eat stones.

I'm honoured!

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s689I920no


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE9lcWRgTOE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTsaZWzVJ4c


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontic?wprov=sfla1

kkins25:
The whole concepts and lingo are really heavy. I was turning to and fro on my bed trying to process just a few sentences.

I finished the Forward, Translator's Preface, Author's Preface to the Seventh German Edition, and The Necessity, Structure and Priority of the Question of Being, which is section 1 of the Introduction and the first chapter in the book, and where I'm up to, Martin seems to be doing Descarte to "being", a word he has yet to fully allow one to comprehend while allowing one to think one has.

In the Intro Heidegger seems to be suggesting we see things through lenses we do not know we wear such that the questions we ask are coached in the language that has already implied an answer and directs us where we must search. This makes us ignorant, he seems to imply, and he says we must not be.

All I hear inside my head as I read is, "The eye is the lamp of the body, if you do not learn how to use your lamps properly, your whole being would be in full darkness!" I don't suppose I need explain that the blind cannot ever see the formless and empty darkness over the surface of the deep nor can their Spirit hover over the waters not to talk of have anything to do with Light.

The fact that buda misrepresents Heidegger within the confines of buda's own tiny mind and misunderstanding as done above thereby ignorantly doing exactly what Heidegger says buda stupidly does, i.e., coach what buda understands within buda's own preconceived beliefs of knowledge about words and the narrowness of buda's limited capability to understand, is what Heidegger seems to be willing to cure by saying, "buda, enter into your mother's belly and be reborn as a child without the preconceived ideas and polluting beliefs and see anew", and shows buda must read the Intro again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and ag... and that's just section one of the Introduction!

This book has Greek in it, and Latin too, neither of which I can read, in case anyone wondered. I got enough trouble dictionarying every other English word to worry much about the Greek and the Latin which he intentionally uses as a veil like the Cherubims with flaming swords which turn every way lest we put forth our hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live for ever. Thankfully, he paraphrases and explains in his uberyodish what it means so one pretty much gets an idea, but if anyone would brave the Cherubims for us, his references are incredibly impeccably deep.

sageb:
remember heidegger's concept "Dasein"

Could you explain "heidegger's concept "Dasein""?

budaatum:

Could you explain "heidegger's concept "Dasein""?

Heidegger's Dasein is filled with concepts but let me summarize it for you. Heidegger is a major proponent of ontology(study of Being). He begins his Dasein with the uncovering of the human being. I am a human Being and it is only a human being that can be regarded as the subject DASEIN- Being there. The essence of my DAsein is in my existence. This view corroborates the existentialist Jean paul satre's "existence precedes essence". For Heidegger, there are 2 types of existence- Authentic and Inauthentic existence. Should i continue?

sageb:
Heidegger's Dasein is filled with concepts but let me summarize it for you. Heidegger is a major proponent of ontology(study of Being). He begins his Dasein with the uncovering of the human being. I am a human Being and it is only a human being that can be regarded as the subject DASEIN- Being there. The essence of my DAsein is in my existence. This view corroborates the existentialist Jean paul satre's "existence precedes essence". For Heidegger, there are 2 types of existence- Authentic and Inauthentic existence. Should i continue?

Thanks, Sageb. I take it you've read Heidegger's Dasein book, which we are struggling to read here. I picked up Sartre's, What is Subjectivity at Foyles today, a subject I'm interested in.

Heidegger's Dasein is so filled with concepts that just from reading the very first chapter, I'm tempted to claim that summarising and saying, Dasein is this or is that, is unheideggerian, except no such word exists, which is heideggerianic in its own right.

I have the feeling we will be on this awhile, so rather than continue, you can perhaps just follow and help out when we misunderstand or when you have insight to share or when someone asks questions you might be able to assist with or to just kick our asses so we actually read the very difficult to understand unless one puts the work in, book!

i finished reading the introduction yesterday- as i have designated the day to worship the sun as the day i shall dedicate my time to study the book dear Budaatum has recommended. After reading the introduction for the third time since Buda recommended it, i'm starting to get a grasp of what Mr Martin Heidegger has to say, ie. in the introduction only .

I must confess again fore "every tale worth telling is what telling twice" or thrice and more, that i had suffered to read a page- take a break, read it again or sometimes read a paragraph or sentence or word twice, thrice and more before i finally understand what was being said. talking of the Devil BEING, is a word that i am quite sure was invented by the Devil because Darkness is something Being and the Devil have in common. Do note that i mean this in every complimentary way possible. lo and behold, i finally reached the last period of the introduction. how my brains rejoiced before i put them to work again by serving them with a youtube video of Jordan Maxwell and his 'theatrice' on World Governments and its romance with Evil.

The introduction of the Book, ie. Being and Time gives us a peek into one of many mysteries of the inquiring mind of an 'abnormal' human being in the likes of Aristotle, Plato, Nietzsche, Leibenz, Einstein, etc. The inquiry that martin has introduced is one he claims humanity has lost touch with or its inquiry has been obscured by the evolving nature of philosophy and inquiry such as scientific base logical research.

The concept of BEING(noun), i, as a science fellow usually denotes to define something Alive, ie. an organism and sometimes like Spirit Beings. Martin recognizes my definition of Being which he says is synonymous to 'entity' but martin knocks my head thrice with each knock representing the presumptions that society has implanted in my mind preventing me from grasping the actual depths of the term BEING.

The first presumption of Being is that where Being is used as a universal concept. martin uses the hierarchical nomenclature of biological taxonomy as examples to illustrate how we have come to define the term Being. 'Genus' and 'species' are taxonomic classifications popularized by Carl von Linné or Carolus linnaeus or better still carl linnaeus to group living things. An example from me to illustrate my understanding of the misconception pointed out by Martin concerning the concept of Being is that of a group of Dogs. Bull dog, rottweiler, etc are all Dogs but they are different Dogs: So "BEING" in this sense is Dogs since it describes all DOGs. I believe this was the message Martin was trying to pass. However, i stand to be corrected.
To counter this a priori made by we; the science folks, the Mad philosopher- Martin introduces the limitations of the inquirer. This constitute issues of subjectivity of the inquirer, fore the inquirer can only grasp the BEING of the DOG that the inquirers Mind or level of understanding permits the inquirer to grasp . I would further discuss this later, do read on.

The second presumption[/b]is one we resort to when our brains can not carry out the complex task of defining BEING and that is the presumption of [b]BEING is undefinable. This was easy to grasp wasn't it? trust me, it fuqing wasn't! Martin says because we often ascribe BEING to 'universality', we shoot ourselves in the foot of proclaiming that "BEING is undefinable". Martin points out that if BEING is universal then BEING is everywhere, and if BEING is everywhere then BEING cannot be entity which we define it as. Remember, BEING is a verb "To Be", so how can BEING be everything if 'everything is not a being or be-ing?
fuq you maarrrrtinnnnnnn

The third Presumption; perception. I was around 8-10 years old, suffering from a complex of inferiority complex, a wandering mind and lack of resources to quench the flames of curiosity. i often wondered, do people see me the way i see myself, ie. physically? Do i see the world the same way others see the world? why can't i access the optical vision of others? i wondered if, eg. a leaf with all its features appeared to me exactly as it appeared to others? the only world i knew was that which was before my eyes, but i wasnt the only being on the fuqing planet so it got me wondering what is michael jackson doing now,? what do michael jackson's eyes see currently? why cant i see it? i was a mad kid. unfortunately i lost my inquiring mind to the creativity black hole of naija.

Now, back to Martin heidegger. BEING was defined as a sort of as being because being could interact with other beings. inorder words, because i exist and others know i exist then it is self evident that i am being. However, this description of BEING is grossly misleading. we as humans perceive the world through our limited senses, on the account of this senses we define that which we perceive but what if this sense couldn't perceive? In order words what if a man was blind, dumb and lacked the sense of touch, wouldn't that mean only darkness exists? It would mean that there is no BEING since being cannot be interacted with. we all know that because we cannot see something doesn't mean it isn't there, do not take this as a weapon to fight me for theology because it would end up with your hands up in the position of surrender and me with a wide grin yelling the word 'touche'.

Upon acknowledging the presumptions that keep us from understanding the concept of BEING Martin then devises the methodology to define what BEING is. However, being the genius he is, Martin didn't make the mistake of defining BEING based on presumption he had already stated. the presumption he was very scared of was that of his own LEVEL OF AWARENESS.

fuq you maarrrrtinnnnnnnnnn....
to be continued, this is getting to long already. loading, is the brief intro to the methodology Martin uses to define BEING- DASEIN

kkins25:

This constitute issues of subjectivity of the inquirer, fore the inquirer can only grasp the BEING of the DOG that the inquirers Mind or level of understanding permits the inquirer to grasp

Bravo, kk! And yes, "fuq you maarrrrtinnnnnnnnnn" as he fuqs up our understanding of all that we think we know.

After struggling to get halfway through the second chapter, I've decided to fool myself that I'm still reading by going back to the beginning again especially after kkins with his deep insight made me feel I been reading a different book!

I found I had to check the meaning of [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_%28philosophy%29?wprov=sfla1]phenomenology[/url] again, and a search of my searches show I've looked it up 12 times, 8 of which have been since I began this book. And to think I've avoided Edmund Husserl to date!

Interesting thought:

What is the difference between Rubbish and High Intelligence?

Answer: Reverence for Authority.

If that book had been written by your junior brother how long would it have taken for you to dismiss it as a load of rubbish.

The fact, it seems, is that a lesser intelligence can not assess a higher intelligence. The works of the higher intelligence would just seem like rubbish. However if all your teachers in school and everyone you respect extolls the work then you are humbled and acknowledge that maybe the work just surpasses what you can grasp.

Now think of all the things that you've ever dismissed as rubbish. and think, could it be that it is a work of superior intelligence by someone that I just simply did not respect as an authority?

PastorAIO:
Interesting thought:

What is the difference between Rubbish and High Intelligence?

Answer: Reverence for Authority.

If that book had been written by your junior brother how long would it have taken for you to dismiss it as a load of rubbish.

The fact, it seems, is that a lesser intelligence can not assess a higher intelligence. The works of the higher intelligence would just seem like rubbish. However if all your teachers in school and everyone you respect extolls the work then you are humbled and acknowledge that maybe the work just surpasses what you can grasp.

Now think of all the things that you've ever dismissed as rubbish. and think, could it be that it is a work of superior intelligence by someone that I just simply did not respect as an authority?

Do note that many are discarding the "Reverence for Authority" of the Bible and Quran and even God, which indicates we are evolving and growing up. We are copying Adam and Eve who refused to remain naked and enslaved in the Garden of Eden so ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil so we too may see with open eyes and cover our unclothedness. Those who develop their minds by eating fully of the forbidden fruits of knowledge can determine for themselves the difference between good and evil.

It is indeed common for that which is superior intelligence to be discarded by lesser intelligence, but if my "lesser intelligence" makes me dismiss my junior brother's "High Intelligence" as a load of rubbish, smarter people than me would read my discardation and discard me as low intelligent rubbish.

Do note that this particular book almost surpasses what we can grasp, hence us struggling and needing to read bits so many times to grasp it and develop our minds, and the little of it we have read and do understand does already make us reassess what we thought we knew as it specifically in the first chapter, advises that one reassess what one thinks one knows. Those of us reading it would tell you from the little we've read that the book does what it was intended to do which is, telling us to accept the limits of our knowledge, or ignorance, and learn and grow.

Hope you are reading it, because your superior high mind will only increase our understanding.

so, I'm back from my malaria break. men, i felt like i was gonna die. Malaria never hit me that hard before.
unfortunately, I've missed two sunday reads for one legitimate reason and the other- i don't want to remember self.

Its good to be back and alive, life they say is vanity. i always laugh at that statement, wait till you're on a sick bed, you'd see how not-vanity life is.

Hope we are all faring well.

kkins25:
so, I'm back from my malaria break. men, i felt like i was gonna die. Malaria never hit me that hard before.
unfortunately, I've missed two sunday reads for one legitimate reason and the other- i don't want to remember self.

Its good to be back and alive, life they say is vanity. i always laugh at that statement, wait till you're on a sick bed, you'd see how not-vanity life is.

Hope we are all faring well.

Glad you recovered. I've been rather occupied too, though nothing serious like you.

LordReed:


Seun you hear? Create a Philosophy sub.

I swear I would love this. Seun oh please we need a philosophy thread.

budaatum:
A couple of us decided to read


But we are struggling because its very way over our heads. I haven't even got to the end of the forward despite starting three times!


So we decided we'd start a thread to see if any one would help us slog through it or has slogged through it already to help with understanding.

Heidegger, in his 1926 book, seems to be trying to establish what is meant by "being", which in my much very untutored understanding sounds like, "What does it mean when we say a thing exists"? He appears to be saying, "being" has been assumed without an understanding of existence and attempts to make one aware of the fact so we can transcend our ignorance. If and how he does that is what by reading one might find out.

I've posted this here in the religious section, not because it's religious, but because there is no Philosophy Section and Religion is the closest to it. This is however strictly not about "beliefs", but about understanding what one reads, so let us please beware of the narrowness of our minds.

when I finish thus spoke Zarathustra I would try this book, as far as it isn't Immanuel Kant (I've heard his grammar can drive you nuts) I would read.

SegFault:

when I finish thus spoke Zarathustra I would try this book, as far as it isn't Immanuel Kant (I've heard his grammar can drive you nuts) I would read.

Warning!

This will drive you nuttier!

budaatum:

Warning!

This will drive you nuttier!

bros no just try Kant, German philosophers have knack for driving people nuts, but I heard Kant is the worst followed by Hegel. I prefer Nietzsche though, he is more easier to read. I think we should just create a philosophy thread in the education section, to prevent theists from bumping their asses into it.

SegFault:

bros no just try Kant, German philosophers have knack for driving people nuts, but I heard Kant is the worst followed by Hegel. I prefer Nietzsche though, he is more easier to read.

Nietzsche wrote some of his writing for popular reading, while Kant and Hegel were more academic. It's like they did not want too many to read it least it be read and their eyes open, which alone is a reason to read them unless one desires being blind. They sure will make one see the world different (and better?) once read.

budaatum:

Nietzsche wrote some of his writing for popular reading, while Kant and Hegel were more academic. It's like they did not want too many to read it least it be read and their eyes open, which alone is a reason to read them unless one desires being blind. They sure will make one see the world different (and better?) once read.

Sha that's true, I think Kant said something like that, but he is a moral philosopher (forgotten what they call that branch) what's the need of hiding it, sha na to read summaries when I get his time, can't wade through crazy grammar.

SegFault:

Sha that's true, I think Kant said something like that, but he is a moral philosopher (forgotten what they call that branch) what's the need of hiding it, sha na to read summaries when I get his time, can't wade through crazy grammar.

There are many reasons for 'hiding' it. One reason is so that it does not fall into the hands of those who have not yet developed the intellectual capacity to understand it and who might read it and believe snippets of it just like many do with their Bible for instance, which is why it is written that "After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life".

Those who understand will reach out and grab the fruit of the tree of life and live forever like Nietzsche, and Kant, and Heidegger, and Jesus have done.

budaatum:


There are many reasons for 'hiding' it. One reason is so that it does not fall into the hands of those who have not yet developed the intellectual capacity to understand it and who might read it and believe snippets of it just like many do with their Bible for instance, which is why it is written that "After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life".

Those who understand will reach out and grab the fruit of the tree of life and live forever like Nietzsche, and Kant, and Heidegger, and Jesus have done.

Sha true, but why do you believe Jesus was a philosopher or something.

SegFault:

Sha true, but why do you believe Jesus was a philosopher or something.

I do not believe Jesus is a philosopher! I know he is.

A philosopher is a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields, which Jesus did and which therefore make him a philosopher. He was so good at philosophising and at making philosophy accessible to the common people, that he is considered to be a god by many.