mehn!! yester night i opened a the book or pdf rather again after a long time, i was like; is this the same book?? i cant even remember highlighting some of the concepts there.. "historicality" "historiology", like wtf.... i highlighted those concepts but have no memory of highlighting them.. haha... i think id just be reading 2 pages per day...it would take 6 months to really read this book.

I finally got to the end of the Introduction and I'm about to start Part One. The introduction is 64 pages and I read it 7 times (to the end only twice), and in fact had to cheat.

I found the hardcopy has far too much untranslated Greek and Latin, so I had to keep checking meanings which made it unreadable. Then I found someone to translate the Greek and Latin as he read it to me and the book revealed itself to be more profound than I thought.

You may want to cheat as I did so here is a link to my reader.

In his lucid introduction to this recording, Professor Taylor Carman declares unequivocally that Being and Time by Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) is ‘one of the great masterpieces of 20th century philosophy.’ And that is despite the fact that it is unquestionably a challenging listen. But by placing it in its historical context - the key work on existentialism between Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) and Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) - it becomes much easier to approach.

As Professor Carman explains, ‘Being and Time addresses a seemingly simple question: What does it mean to be?’ As far as we know, human beings are the only existing things ‘with an understanding of what it is for something to exist’ and, furthermore, are aware of their own existence. Heidegger chose the German word Dasein - existence: literally ‘being there’ - instead of more common expressions such as man, human being, soul, consciousness, etc. And he embarks upon his investigation, considering ‘being there in-the-world, in time (past, present, future); discussing ‘authentic’ and ‘inauthentic’ living and dying; and the acceptance of impermanence. ‘Dasein’s existence is pervaded by a primordial kind of anxiety (Angst)’, Carman remarks, but points out that the concept of care is central to Heidegger’s view: ‘to be a human being is to care about something’.

Being and Time was published in 1927 during the Weimar period in Germany, a time of political, social and economic turmoil. Heidegger himself did not escape the pressures, and his nationalism and undeniable anti-Semitism in the following decades cast a shadow over the man, but not the work. Being and Time is not coloured by expressions of his later views (unlike other writings) and remains an outstanding document.

budaatum:
I finally got to the end of the Introduction and I'm about to start Part One. The introduction is 64 pages and I read it 7 times (to the end only twice), and in fact had to cheat.

I found the hardcopy has far too much untranslated Greek and Latin, so I had to keep checking meanings which made it unreadable. Then I found someone to translate the Greek and Latin as he read it to me and the book revealed itself to be more profound than I thought.

You may want to cheat as I did so here is a link to my reader.

It is still impossible for nothing to exist.
The book can't change that.

HellVictorinho:


It is still impossible for nothing to exist.
The book can't change that.

Do you remember who said the following?

HellVictorinho:


If 'everything' exists somewhere, 'nothing' must also exist elsewhere.

Did you find nothing existed in the book when you read it, or is someone trying to convince you somewhere that it is possible or impossible for nothing to exist?

budaatum:



Do you remember who said the following?



Did you find nothing existed in the book when you read it, or is someone trying to convince you somewhere that it is possible or impossible for nothing to exist?

I used the word "if" for a reason.
The universe is regarded by some as EVERYTHING that exists or as the TOTALITY of EXISTENCE .
These people think there is a limit to the things that exist.
If there is a limit to the things that exist,then it means nothing exists outside such limit.
But I don't think there is a limit to the things that exist.
I don't think there's a TOTALITY of EXISTENCE.
Furthermore,there are some people that think the universe has no limit.
But I think the universe has limits since it is actually something.
The universe is just another group of indivisible ageless objects.
There are actually infinite indivisible ageless objects whose movements coincide with the appearance of structures to an observer.
Nothing cannot exist as nothing means nothing since nothing has no form or/and since nothing is made of nothing.

HellVictorinho:


I used the word "if" for a reason.
The universe is regarded by some as ....

Hell, don't you think you should be having this conversation with those "some" instead of with buda?

But if you do feel the need to discuss it with buda, feel free to start a thread because this is not the thread for you unless you are talking about the book referred to please.

budaatum:


Hell, don't you think you should be having this conversation with those "some" instead of with buda?

But if you do feel the need to discuss it with buda, feel free to start a thread because this is not the thread for you unless you are talking about the book referred to please.

Do you think I agree with them?
Read everything I post before replying.

budaatum:


Hell, don't you think you should be having this conversation with those "some" instead of with buda?

But if you do feel the need to discuss it with buda, feel free to start a thread because this is not the thread for you unless you are talking about the book referred to please.

Read all of my post before replying when necessary.
It doesn't make sense to say this or that is not meant for me when I know what you are talking about .

This book can't change what I have said about the impossibility of the existence of nothing.
The universe is not the totality of existence.
There can't be a totality of existence.
The universe is just another group of indivisible ageless objects.

HellVictorinho:


Do you think I agree with them?
Read everything I post before replying.

Why are you arguing your disagreement with them with buda? And why should I be concerned to read your argument with them?

Not here to rain on anyone’s parade but I bring some precipitation. Admire your European sages with some caveat.....

SegFault:

Sha that's true, I think Kant said something like that, but he is a moral philosopher (forgotten what they call that branch)

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.

Kant himself was notoriously racist. He treated race as a scientific category (which it is not), correlated it with the ability for abstract thought, and – theorising on the destiny of races in lectures to students – arranged them in a hierarchical order:

1. ‘The race of the whites contains all talents and motives in itself.’
2. ‘The Hindus … have a strong degree of calm, and all look like philosophers. That notwithstanding, they are much inclined to anger and love. They thus are educable in the highest degree, but only to the arts and not to the sciences. They will never achieve abstract concepts. [Kant ranks the Chinese with East Indians, and claims that they are] static … for their history books show that they do not know more now than they have long known.’
3. ‘The race of Negroes … [is] full of affect and passion, very lively, chatty and vain. It can be educated, but only to the education of servants, ie, they can be trained.’
4. ‘The [Indigenous] American people are uneducable; for they lack affect and passion. They are not amorous, and so are not fertile. They speak hardly at all, … care for nothing and are lazy.’

Heidegger was a member and supporter of the Nazi Party.[19][20] There is controversy as to the relationship between his philosophy and his Nazism.[21][22]

Hegel had some great ideas about non-Europeans too.

HellVictorinho:
This book can't change what I have said about the impossibility of the existence of nothing.
The universe is not the totality of existence.
There can't be a totality of existence.
The universe is just another group of indivisible ageless objects.

I am glad to see you read the book and found nothing in it.

If you do not mind, I will read the book myself instead of taking your word for it. Not because I do not trust you, mind, just that I'd rather use my own eyes and mind instead of just believing you.

Heidegger was a card carrying Nazi. Just so you know I know.

Martian:
Not here to rain on anyone’s parade but I bring some precipitation. Admire your European sages with some caveat.....

Kant himself was notoriously racist. He treated race as a scientific category (which it is not), correlated it with the ability for abstract thought, and – theorising on the destiny of races in lectures to students – arranged them in a hierarchical order:

1. ‘The race of the whites contains all talents and motives in itself.’
2. ‘The Hindus … have a strong degree of calm, and all look like philosophers. That notwithstanding, they are much inclined to anger and love. They thus are educable in the highest degree, but only to the arts and not to the sciences. They will never achieve abstract concepts. [Kant ranks the Chinese with East Indians, and claims that they are] static … for their history books show that they do not know more now than they have long known.’
3. ‘The race of Negroes … [is] full of affect and passion, very lively, chatty and vain. It can be educated, but only to the education of servants, ie, they can be trained.’
4. ‘The [Indigenous] American people are uneducable; for they lack affect and passion. They are not amorous, and so are not fertile. They speak hardly at all, … care for nothing and are lazy.’

Martian:
Not here to rain on anyone’s parade but I bring some precipitation. Admire your European sages with some caveat.....





Kant himself was notoriously racist. He treated race as a scientific category (which it is not), correlated it with the ability for abstract thought, and – theorising on the destiny of races in lectures to students – arranged them in a hierarchical order:

1. ‘The race of the whites contains all talents and motives in itself.’
2. ‘The Hindus … have a strong degree of calm, and all look like philosophers. That notwithstanding, they are much inclined to anger and love. They thus are educable in the highest degree, but only to the arts and not to the sciences. They will never achieve abstract concepts. [Kant ranks the Chinese with East Indians, and claims that they are] static … for their history books show that they do not know more now than they have long known.’
3. ‘The race of Negroes … [is] full of affect and passion, very lively, chatty and vain. It can be educated, but only to the education of servants, ie, they can be trained.’
4. ‘The [Indigenous] American people are uneducable; for they lack affect and passion. They are not amorous, and so are not fertile. They speak hardly at all, … care for nothing and are lazy.’

So what should I now do, disregard the fact that most of his teachings invoke deep and rational thinking. I didn't ask you bro, I know he was racist that is not my business, my business is the message not the messenger.

budaatum:
Heidegger was a card carrying Nazi. Just so you know I know.

He denied it and it wasn't really clear, it's a really cloudy and controversial topic.

SegFault:

So what should I now do, disregard the fact that most of his teachings invoke deep and rational thinking. I didn't ask you bro, I know he was racist that is not my business, my business is the message not the messenger.

How correct is the message when the messenger’s thinking is flawed?

They had some “rational” ideas and plenty “irrational”.

SegFault:

So what should I now do, disregard the fact that most of his teachings invoke deep and rational thinking. I didn't ask you bro, I know he was racist that is not my business, my business is the message not the messenger.

I think some think most read books and just believe instead of seeking understanding. They'd probably say", Don't read Mein Kampf so you don't become Hitler".

SegFault:

So what should I now do, disregard the fact that most of his teachings invoke deep and rational thinking. I didn't ask you bro, I know he was racist that is not my business, my business is the message not the messenger.

What part of his message is so deep?

budaatum:


I am glad to see you read the book and found nothing in it.

If you do not mind, I will read the book myself instead of taking your word for it. Not because I do not trust you, mind, just that I'd rather use my own eyes and mind instead of just believing you.

I didn't say there is nothing in it.
I only said it cannot change what I've stated before.

budaatum:


I think some think most read books and just believe instead of seeking understanding. They'd probably say", Don't read Mein Kampf so you don't become Hitler".

Nobody said anything about believing or understanding. Just bringing up their flawed side for people who may not know and who may fall headlong into white delusion ideas.

You place them on a pedestal. I just take them off.

Martian:


How correct is the message when the messenger’s thinking is flawed?

They had some “rational” ideas and plenty “irrational”.

Even if the message is flawed, would you not benefit from reading it to know the flaw so you don't make the same mistake?

Is this why you have not read the Bible you believe is flawed? I wonder why we should take your critique of it seriously when you have not read it. You sound like a critique of food you've never tasted.

budaatum:
Heidegger was a card carrying Nazi. Just so you know I know.

Didn’t know he had a card. Thanks

Martian:
Not here to rain on anyone’s parade but I bring some precipitation. Admire your European sages with some caveat.....





Kant himself was notoriously racist. He treated race as a scientific category (which it is not), correlated it with the ability for abstract thought, and – theorising on the destiny of races in lectures to students – arranged them in a hierarchical order:

1. ‘The race of the whites contains all talents and motives in itself.’
2. ‘The Hindus … have a strong degree of calm, and all look like philosophers. That notwithstanding, they are much inclined to anger and love. They thus are educable in the highest degree, but only to the arts and not to the sciences. They will never achieve abstract concepts. [Kant ranks the Chinese with East Indians, and claims that they are] static … for their history books show that they do not know more now than they have long known.’
3. ‘The race of Negroes … [is] full of affect and passion, very lively, chatty and vain. It can be educated, but only to the education of servants, ie, they can be trained.’
4. ‘The [Indigenous] American people are uneducable; for they lack affect and passion. They are not amorous, and so are not fertile. They speak hardly at all, … care for nothing and are lazy.’

Heidegger was a member and supporter of the Nazi Party.[19][20] There is controversy as to the relationship between his philosophy and his Nazism.[21][22]

Hegel had some great ideas about non-Europeans too.

Anything that tends towards the concept of white supremacy doesn't make sense.

budaatum:


Even if the message is flawed, would you not benefit from reading it to know the flaw so you don't make the same mistake?

Is this why you have not read the Bible you believe is flawed? I wonder why we should take your critique of it seriously when you have not read it. You sound like a critique of food you've never tasted.

What makes you think I haven’t read or even know some of the inspiration of your European masters. I don’t make the mistake of placing them on a pedestal because I, lol, understand what and who they are.

As for the Bible. I’m currently reading on the transition from Kinglike priests to kingship under Samuel leading up to the political/ religious propaganda that is the story of King David.

HellVictorinho:


Anything that tends towards the concept of white supremacy doesn't make sense.

Some have imbibed white delusion for so long they think it’s reality.

Martian:


How correct is the message when the messenger’s thinking is flawed?

They had some “rational” ideas and plenty “irrational”.

can you even understand most of what Kant wrote, there is a reason why people start reading these philosophical works, for example I read Nietzsche because his views on life are highly applicable most especially to a place like Nigeria where collectivism and herd mentality are praised. We read these messages not because of the messenger but the message means we see something in these messages that you might not see, if you are looking for blm people or Afrocentric People who just cancel because the herd does that or because they don't want to think for themselves, I'm sorry you quoted the wrong person, I even agree with Hitler on some cases if what he is talking about makes sense.

Martian:


Nobody said anything about believing or understanding. Just bringing up their flawed side for people who may not know and who may fall headlong into white delusion ideas.

You place them on a pedestal. I just take them off.

You place them on pedestals Martian just so you can convince yourself you take them off. Its called the strawman fallacy, go look it up

buda, as you can clearly, does not live by bread alone. Those who do become malnourished.

HellVictorinho:


Anything that tends towards the concept of white supremacy doesn't make sense.

His philosophy is about morals not who is better or not.

SegFault:

can you even understand ...

Understand? He does not even want it read so how can he possibly understand?

Martian:


What part of his message is so deep?

Categorical imperative, I hope you know what it means, see this thread was peaceful don't stir up nonsense.

budaatum:


Understand? He does not even want it read so how can he possibly understand?

That is the first problem, people like Schopenhauer might have read it wrongly self.

Martian:


Some have imbibed white delusion for so long they think it’s reality.

Exactly.