Beauvoir is brutally honest about the despair of adulthood. He says that man will long for a time when he was a child and did not have the freedom that he has now at an older age. This reminds me of an idea David Foster Wallace presented in one of his works that the point of college is to learn how to think and how to deal with the daily monotonous routine of the adult life.
Heidegger's work was very difficult to understand but what I was able to gather from it is that Dasein represents an everyday person who is an inauthentic amalgam of the people in their surroundings. The most interesting part of this piece is the excerpt that he included about the abandoned houses. The house shared walls with two other houses and although it deteriorated it kept it's personality and the individual quirks that the made the house unique.
I personally thought Heideggers writing was hard to follow, however what I believed to understand of his ideas of being authentic and inauthentic are not far apart. He writes how someone who is inauthentic does not necessarily live an unimportant life. Being authentic is just a more self secure version of an inauthentic life.
I much more enjoyed Beauvoir's work discussing the harsh reality of growing up and facing adulthood. I enjoyed this work more because it was very relatable for a college student, or anyone around this age who is transitioning from childhood to adulthood. I do think his outlook on adulthood is a little dark, but there are many aspects that I already agree with.
1. I found the theory of the Dasein interesting in general. 2. I appreciate the of assertion of people determining their own fate and people are who they build themselves to be. Rather than the theory of you being born into the person you are meant to be.
Heidegger seems to be saying that inauthenticity is a fundamental part of Dasein because we define ourselves in part by the world around us and through raw experience, rather than through pure knowledge and introspection. This would be consistent with the existentialist view that asserts humans must be defined only through their actions.
Beauvoir is exceedingly harsh on people who live apathetic lives, almost living inauthentically through a lack of inauthenticity since he argues that inauthenticity is really just taking your personal being and recasting it into the world. Beauvoir denotes the person living haphazardly as a "sub-man" who lacks the spontaneous qualities of expression such as vitality, intelligence, and sensitivity.
I’m having trouble understanding what Heidegger means when he uses the term “intraworldy” here. Is Heidegger claiming that we first exist inauthentically (by understanding ourselves through beings external to ourselves) before we can exist authentically?
I appreciate Beauvoir’s use of the term “sub-men” in describing individuals behaving inauthentically. It succinctly describes how someone who does not “cast themselves into the world” can not be fully and truly human.
Heidegger's unpacking of what it is to exist, and to exist authentically, revealed his interpretation of the Dasein.
When it came to existence, he treats the Dasein and authenticity as "existing in the world as it exist." He remarks that authenticity is not an opposition to inauthenticity, but that authenticity something that covers the inauthentic. Where existence plays a role here, is revealed in his example of the shoe maker. He states that the shoe maker is not the shoe, but the shoe exist in the world of the shoe maker. That is, the way the shoe is, is due to the existence of the shoe maker, and the world the shoe maker operates within.
The second idea that Heidegger proposed which was standing out to me, was that of the inauthentic man being sub-human. "To exist is to make oneself a lack of being; it is to cast oneself into the world. Those who occupy themselves in restraining this original movement can be considered as sub-men." This statement of needing to project oneself in order to exist has parallels with some of the lines Sartre wrote in "Existentialism is a Humanism", namely when Sartre defines humanism as "man constantly losing himself."
1) I enjoyed Heideggers break down of the authentic life and inauthentic. I feel like the distiction of his deffinitions were very close but their effect on your life is great. When living an inauthentic life you are less contect and living a less purposful life. While we understand how finite life is this distinction is increadibly important.
2) Also the understanding of learning the authenic you is a process. I really like this concept aswell because it shows the large amount of time and work it takes to figure out the authenic version of you. Only with the time and the lived life experiences can we reach this point.
Although I found Heidegger's work difficult to follow and very convoluted, I enjoyed his view of inauthenticity being the baseline state for any human and they build their own existence through their actions and that each individual can build a their own subjective meaning through authentic choices. The second reading even pushes this further by suggesting that to live an inauthentic life, devoid of any constructed meaning is "sub-human" and will consequently result in a dull and insignificant world view.
one thing that stood out to me was the argument against automation. Arguing that technology doesn't makes the men of today happier then those of former times. I'm reminded of the myth of Sisyphus who found meaning within his overly harsh manual labour and may of even been happy with it.
I find it interesting that, despite condemning Nietzsche putting his “will to power” in the same category as solipsism, Beauvoir uses some of the same phrases Nietzsche popularized so many years earlier. Specifically when she refers to “Sub-man,” (as compared to Nietzsche’s “Untermensch) I see a similarity in rhetoric, although they strive toward different goals.
Although it was significantly more difficult to understand, I think Heidegger’s interpretation of authenticity as a modification of inauthenticity is interesting. Like many other’s, it seems Heidegger thinks of inauthenticity as a default state, out of which one must consistently try to stay out of, or overcome. If my understanding is correct, it reminds me of the commencement address given by David Foster Wallace retroactively titled “This is Water” where he discusses at length the ideas of inauthenticity through living in a default state of “autopilot.”
When Beauvoir says ‘the oppressior feeds himself on their transcendence and refuses to extend it by a free recognition’ it reminded me of a line from Zizeks Absolute Recoil where he says “First a sacrifice is the disavowal of the Big Other; at its most elementary the subject does not offer his sacrifice to profit from it himself but to fill in the lack of the Other, to sustain the appearance of the Others Omnipotency...” I could completely be misreading Beauvoir here however there is something I find interesting in her hostile stance twoard transcendence.
As for Heidegger I found it highly interesting that he himself observed that being can not be separated from the world in which it lives. It becomes even more interesting considering the specific historical context which he existed within and it’s material consequences. As a side note I find Heideggers stance on technology to be incredibly relevant when attempting to understand his leap into national socialism as it were.
I enjoyed the Beauvoir reading about what it means to exists and I feel with the example of the painter he is saying that people are born with free will but is freedom all that great if other people will define your existence by doing things to please others.
I found the Heidegger reading complicated to read but I do see a similarity with the Beauvoir reading and that is living inauthentic life defining yourself through the similarities you have with other people.
I found it interesting how Heidegger felt that children are lucky in that the do not know that they have freedom. Heidegger believes that freedom is can be problematic because having the ability to choose any option is quite stressful.
Another idea Heidegger brought up I found interesting and somewhat true is that men see others as limited but themselves as limitless. I believe this is true because often feel this way. I think I can do anything I set my mind to but often when I look at others I see them as having somewhat of a glass ceiling. Heidegger was definitely being very introspective because he realized his own bias towards others.
Beauvoir is brutally honest about the despair of adulthood. He says that man will long for a time when he was a child and did not have the freedom that he has now at an older age. This reminds me of an idea David Foster Wallace presented in one of his works that the point of college is to learn how to think and how to deal with the daily monotonous routine of the adult life.
ReplyDeleteHeidegger's work was very difficult to understand but what I was able to gather from it is that Dasein represents an everyday person who is an inauthentic amalgam of the people in their surroundings. The most interesting part of this piece is the excerpt that he included about the abandoned houses. The house shared walls with two other houses and although it deteriorated it kept it's personality and the individual quirks that the made the house unique.
I personally thought Heideggers writing was hard to follow, however what I believed to understand of his ideas of being authentic and inauthentic are not far apart. He writes how someone who is inauthentic does not necessarily live an unimportant life. Being authentic is just a more self secure version of an inauthentic life.
ReplyDeleteI much more enjoyed Beauvoir's work discussing the harsh reality of growing up and facing adulthood. I enjoyed this work more because it was very relatable for a college student, or anyone around this age who is transitioning from childhood to adulthood. I do think his outlook on adulthood is a little dark, but there are many aspects that I already agree with.
1. I found the theory of the Dasein interesting in general.
ReplyDelete2. I appreciate the of assertion of people determining their own fate and people are who they build themselves to be. Rather than the theory of you being born into the person you are meant to be.
Heidegger seems to be saying that inauthenticity is a fundamental part of Dasein because we define ourselves in part by the world around us and through raw experience, rather than through pure knowledge and introspection. This would be consistent with the existentialist view that asserts humans must be defined only through their actions.
ReplyDeleteBeauvoir is exceedingly harsh on people who live apathetic lives, almost living inauthentically through a lack of inauthenticity since he argues that inauthenticity is really just taking your personal being and recasting it into the world. Beauvoir denotes the person living haphazardly as a "sub-man" who lacks the spontaneous qualities of expression such as vitality, intelligence, and sensitivity.
I’m having trouble understanding what Heidegger means when he uses the term “intraworldy” here. Is Heidegger claiming that we first exist inauthentically (by understanding ourselves through beings external to ourselves) before we can exist authentically?
ReplyDeleteI appreciate Beauvoir’s use of the term “sub-men” in describing individuals behaving inauthentically. It succinctly describes how someone who does not “cast themselves into the world” can not be fully and truly human.
Heidegger's unpacking of what it is to exist, and to exist authentically, revealed his interpretation of the Dasein.
ReplyDeleteWhen it came to existence, he treats the Dasein and authenticity as "existing in the world as it exist." He remarks that authenticity is not an opposition to inauthenticity, but that authenticity something that covers the inauthentic. Where existence plays a role here, is revealed in his example of the shoe maker. He states that the shoe maker is not the shoe, but the shoe exist in the world of the shoe maker. That is, the way the shoe is, is due to the existence of the shoe maker, and the world the shoe maker operates within.
The second idea that Heidegger proposed which was standing out to me, was that of the inauthentic man being sub-human. "To exist is to make oneself a lack of being; it is to cast oneself into the world. Those who occupy themselves in restraining this original movement can be considered as sub-men." This statement of needing to project oneself in order to exist has parallels with some of the lines Sartre wrote in "Existentialism is a Humanism", namely when Sartre defines humanism as "man constantly losing himself."
1) I enjoyed Heideggers break down of the authentic life and inauthentic. I feel like the distiction of his deffinitions were very close but their effect on your life is great. When living an inauthentic life you are less contect and living a less purposful life. While we understand how finite life is this distinction is increadibly important.
ReplyDelete2) Also the understanding of learning the authenic you is a process. I really like this concept aswell because it shows the large amount of time and work it takes to figure out the authenic version of you. Only with the time and the lived life experiences can we reach this point.
Although I found Heidegger's work difficult to follow and very convoluted, I enjoyed his view of inauthenticity being the baseline state for any human and they build their own existence through their actions and that each individual can build a their own subjective meaning through authentic choices. The second reading even pushes this further by suggesting that to live an inauthentic life, devoid of any constructed meaning is "sub-human" and will consequently result in a dull and insignificant world view.
ReplyDeleteone thing that stood out to me was the argument against automation. Arguing that technology doesn't makes the men of today happier then those of former times. I'm reminded of the myth of Sisyphus who found meaning within his overly harsh manual labour and may of even been happy with it.
I find it interesting that, despite condemning Nietzsche putting his “will to power” in the same category as solipsism, Beauvoir uses some of the same phrases Nietzsche popularized so many years earlier. Specifically when she refers to “Sub-man,” (as compared to Nietzsche’s “Untermensch) I see a similarity in rhetoric, although they strive toward different goals.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it was significantly more difficult to understand, I think Heidegger’s interpretation of authenticity as a modification of inauthenticity is interesting. Like many other’s, it seems Heidegger thinks of inauthenticity as a default state, out of which one must consistently try to stay out of, or overcome. If my understanding is correct, it reminds me of the commencement address given by David Foster Wallace retroactively titled “This is Water” where he discusses at length the ideas of inauthenticity through living in a default state of “autopilot.”
When Beauvoir says ‘the oppressior feeds himself on their transcendence and refuses to extend it by a free recognition’ it reminded me of a line from Zizeks Absolute Recoil where he says “First a sacrifice is the disavowal of the Big Other; at its most elementary the subject does not offer his sacrifice to profit from it himself but to fill in the lack of the Other, to sustain the appearance of the Others Omnipotency...” I could completely be misreading Beauvoir here however there is something I find interesting in her hostile stance twoard transcendence.
ReplyDeleteAs for Heidegger I found it highly interesting that he himself observed that being can not be separated from the world in which it lives. It becomes even more interesting considering the specific historical context which he existed within and it’s material consequences. As a side note I find Heideggers stance on technology to be incredibly relevant when attempting to understand his leap into national socialism as it were.
I enjoyed the Beauvoir reading about what it means to exists and I feel with the example of the painter he is saying that people are born with free will but is freedom all that great if other people will define your existence by doing things to please others.
ReplyDeleteI found the Heidegger reading complicated to read but I do see a similarity with the Beauvoir reading and that is living inauthentic life defining yourself through the similarities you have with other people.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting how Heidegger felt that children are lucky in that the do not know that they have freedom. Heidegger believes that freedom is can be problematic because having the ability to choose any option is quite stressful.
ReplyDeleteAnother idea Heidegger brought up I found interesting and somewhat true is that men see others as limited but themselves as limitless. I believe this is true because often feel this way. I think I can do anything I set my mind to but often when I look at others I see them as having somewhat of a glass ceiling. Heidegger was definitely being very introspective because he realized his own bias towards others.