I had a question concerning Heidegger’s use of the term One, “This Nobody by whom we ourselves are lived in everydayness.” Does this have anything to do with the concepts of pre-reflective and reflective consciousness? Would the One be someone absorbed in the everydayness and hence not be reflecting on themselves as an I?
I’m not entirely sure what Heidegger means when he talks about the Dasein as “running ahead to the past.” Is he referring to the act of stepping out of the everydayness and thinking towards the future and about our lives in terms of our eventual death? It seems like a crucial concept to understand as Heidegger says, “Dasein is authentically alongside itself, it is truly existent, whenever it maintains itself in this running ahead.”
A part of this work that I found interesting was Heidegger's discussion about the clock and the "now". What I believe he is saying here is that seeing the time makes us focus on the now, which I assume to be the present, instead of the duration events or how long they will last. I feel as if Heidegger was trying to explain how we as people view time.
Heidegger goes on to discuss what exactly is the now. He discussed the idea of all of us being time individually. I found this note interesting because nobody on earth has equal amounts of time, and the majority of us are not going to be at the same place at the same time everyday. Are we the ones that control time, or does time control all of us?
1. I was quite confused with the relation to time and eternity. I understand eternity is an infinite amount of time, but regarding life no one's life is infinite. 2. I found the relation of business inquires with philosophy quite interesting, because those two things, I would not typically correlate with one another.
It was hard for me to follow Heidegger's reasoning as to why time must be defined in relation to Dasein while seemingly criticizing physical "definitions" of time.
Heidegger defines time in terms of the future, though I couldn't understand his statements about "coming back in running ahead."
I think this reading was more digestible than other selections of Heidegger we have read. I am intrigued by the way Heidegger choses to articulate certain ideas, because I feel that sometimes he does more harm than good to his point, specifically the way he uses the phrase “ahead to the past.” Nevertheless, I am interested in the idea that the “now” is arbitrary, and only exists as something later than the past, or prior to the future. Most importantly, Heidegger’s hypothesis that Dasein is in some way incomplete until it is no more in fascinating. I never considered the idea that a person is never able to consider their entire existence because, of course, their entire experience of existing is only complete at the moment of their death, functionally making a complete conception of their own existence impossible.
I found this text specifically to have a kind of unusually meditative quality to it. I found the ontological characteristics to be the most interesting pieces of the text with characteristics 5, and eight to be both the most eye catching and slightly hypnotic.
Specifically in the 5th ontological characteristic when he says “...being-with-one-another it is not I myself who for the most part and on average am my Dasein but the others; I am with the others, and the others are likewise with the others...what someone is and how he is, is nobody, no one and yet everyone with one another.” For some reason I am reminded of several ancient eastern texts such as the Bagivadgita and the writings of Shankara. This could be a total misreading never the less I feel as though I am sensing some sort of non-dualism here.
Heidegger forms a definitive meaning of time, referring to is as relationship between two events. He repeatably calls time a homogeneous measure of identical temporal duration, which I thought was good.
Along with being homogeneous, that is, it exist within it's context, Heidegger asserts that time is irreversible and can be explain mathematically.
I thought that one of the more interesting points madly Heideggar was contained on the first page. On the first page he mentions how regardless of theology God is real. I find this interring because I have never read anything from a philosopher that had anything close to this type of thinking. Every philosopher I have read is either a Christian who believes in God or is nor religious and doesn't not believe in God. To find out that their is a philosopher whop believes in God's existence regardless of religion is a surprise.
Heidegger's thinking about time is very interesting. He believes that time is nothing without events. At first I was confused because I know that time continues and is never ending. However, after thinking deeply I realized how much sense this idea made. If are there are no events whose to say that anytime has passed at all. There would be no difference between now and anytime before or after so it would be as if time did not exist.
I had a question concerning Heidegger’s use of the term One, “This Nobody by whom we ourselves are lived in everydayness.” Does this have anything to do with the concepts of pre-reflective and reflective consciousness? Would the One be someone absorbed in the everydayness and hence not be reflecting on themselves as an I?
ReplyDeleteI’m not entirely sure what Heidegger means when he talks about the Dasein as “running ahead to the past.” Is he referring to the act of stepping out of the everydayness and thinking towards the future and about our lives in terms of our eventual death? It seems like a crucial concept to understand as Heidegger says, “Dasein is authentically alongside itself, it is truly existent, whenever it maintains itself in this running ahead.”
A part of this work that I found interesting was Heidegger's discussion about the clock and the "now". What I believe he is saying here is that seeing the time makes us focus on the now, which I assume to be the present, instead of the duration events or how long they will last. I feel as if Heidegger was trying to explain how we as people view time.
ReplyDeleteHeidegger goes on to discuss what exactly is the now. He discussed the idea of all of us being time individually. I found this note interesting because nobody on earth has equal amounts of time, and the majority of us are not going to be at the same place at the same time everyday. Are we the ones that control time, or does time control all of us?
1. I was quite confused with the relation to time and eternity. I understand eternity is an infinite amount of time, but regarding life no one's life is infinite.
ReplyDelete2. I found the relation of business inquires with philosophy quite interesting, because those two things, I would not typically correlate with one another.
It was hard for me to follow Heidegger's reasoning as to why time must be defined in relation to Dasein while seemingly criticizing physical "definitions" of time.
ReplyDeleteHeidegger defines time in terms of the future, though I couldn't understand his statements about "coming back in running ahead."
I think this reading was more digestible than other selections of Heidegger we have read. I am intrigued by the way Heidegger choses to articulate certain ideas, because I feel that sometimes he does more harm than good to his point, specifically the way he uses the phrase “ahead to the past.” Nevertheless, I am interested in the idea that the “now” is arbitrary, and only exists as something later than the past, or prior to the future.
ReplyDeleteMost importantly, Heidegger’s hypothesis that Dasein is in some way incomplete until it is no more in fascinating. I never considered the idea that a person is never able to consider their entire existence because, of course, their entire experience of existing is only complete at the moment of their death, functionally making a complete conception of their own existence impossible.
I found this text specifically to have a kind of unusually meditative quality to it. I found the ontological characteristics to be the most interesting pieces of the text with characteristics 5, and eight to be both the most eye catching and slightly hypnotic.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically in the 5th ontological characteristic when he says “...being-with-one-another it is not I myself who for the most part and on average am my Dasein but the others; I am with the others, and the others are likewise with the others...what someone is and how he is, is nobody, no one and yet everyone with one another.” For some reason I am reminded of several ancient eastern texts such as the Bagivadgita and the writings of Shankara. This could be a total misreading never the less I feel as though I am sensing some sort of non-dualism here.
Heidegger forms a definitive meaning of time, referring to is as relationship between two events. He repeatably calls time a homogeneous measure of identical temporal duration, which I thought was good.
ReplyDeleteAlong with being homogeneous, that is, it exist within it's context, Heidegger asserts that time is irreversible and can be explain mathematically.
I thought that one of the more interesting points madly Heideggar was contained on the first page. On the first page he mentions how regardless of theology God is real. I find this interring because I have never read anything from a philosopher that had anything close to this type of thinking. Every philosopher I have read is either a Christian who believes in God or is nor religious and doesn't not believe in God. To find out that their is a philosopher whop believes in God's existence regardless of religion is a surprise.
ReplyDeleteHeidegger's thinking about time is very interesting. He believes that time is nothing without events. At first I was confused because I know that time continues and is never ending. However, after thinking deeply I realized how much sense this idea made. If are there are no events whose to say that anytime has passed at all. There would be no difference between now and anytime before or after so it would be as if time did not exist.