Would it be correct to say that Heidegger’s purpose in this section from Being and Time is to phenomenologically study the world itself through the way we use equipment (i.e. entities within-the-world)?
I found the terminology Heidegger uses to be a little unclear. When he talks about equipment being “ready-to-hand” does he mean equipment that is not broken and thus usable. Furthermore, does his use of the term “presence-at-hand” mean the imminent content of the equipment?
I found Heidegger's point about tools to be simplistic yet true. The importance of a tool is only show in its use. The appearance of a tool is not at all important only its use is important. Despite being a obvious point in today's society often times people are caught up in the appearance of things.
A question I have is why Heidegger decided to use tools as a parallel to relate to phenomenology?
Im a little unsure as to what Heidegger's point regarding the relation of tools to their uses is. Is he relating it to ourselves? A certain sense of relationship between everything in the world.
Similar to the existentialist view of defining ourselves by our choices, I can likewise see how we defined ourselves with our things as well. Effectively buying into a portion of the world
I’d like to think that I agree with Heidegger in terms of the inferiority of mechanized processes. When he talks of “simple craft conditions” I do think that mass produced things are more generic and indeterminate, however I find it difficult to practically be against technological progress because of the clear and undeniable benefits it has provided society, including but not limited to medical technology, food production, and subsequent longevity. I may be unclear regarding what Heidegger says halfway down page 171 in the reading, but when he says “The shoemaker is not the shoe; but shoe-gear…” I read this to mean that a human, within their experience, can be considered equipment for the creation of things. Whether this is a metaphor and follows that Dasein is equipment for humans is unclear to me.
Heidegger makes it the case that certain situations make a equipment differ from regular objects. The attributes of a equipment are that is inconspicuousness, unobtrusive, and expressed non-obstinacy.
His assessment on equipment calls into his assertions of authenticity. Equipment as an object is inauthentic. However, equipment used as a tool ready-in-hand authenticates the object.
I could be completely butchering old Heideggers work here but in a strange sense it reminds me of the Buddhist view of how we use tools. Where in some sense the tool is seen as an extension of self. I say this in a very specific context where in the use of the tool both the tool and the subject cease to exist in the activity and are thus united in the synthesis of the activity. If this view of Heideggers understanding the universe is correct then we are not our local fictions of self, but rather we are the worlds in which we live. So then does that mean in that context that delapidated house was the inner workings of the subject in the story? Or perhaps that inserts a false dualism, could it just be than that that subject and his world were one?
Would it be correct to say that Heidegger’s purpose in this section from Being and Time is to phenomenologically study the world itself through the way we use equipment (i.e. entities within-the-world)?
ReplyDeleteI found the terminology Heidegger uses to be a little unclear. When he talks about equipment being “ready-to-hand” does he mean equipment that is not broken and thus usable. Furthermore, does his use of the term “presence-at-hand” mean the imminent content of the equipment?
I found Heidegger's point about tools to be simplistic yet true. The importance of a tool is only show in its use. The appearance of a tool is not at all important only its use is important. Despite being a obvious point in today's society often times people are caught up in the appearance of things.
ReplyDeleteA question I have is why Heidegger decided to use tools as a parallel to relate to phenomenology?
I am a little confused as to how Heidegger supposes we reach everyday self-understanding through things in the world.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this I am still unclear as to the importance of equipment and its relations to Dasein and phenomenology.
1. Comment- I love Heidegger.
ReplyDelete2. Question- Why is everything he has to say seemingly a paradox?
Im a little unsure as to what Heidegger's point regarding the relation of tools to their uses is. Is he relating it to ourselves? A certain sense of relationship between everything in the world.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to the existentialist view of defining ourselves by our choices, I can likewise see how we defined ourselves with our things as well. Effectively buying into a portion of the world
I’d like to think that I agree with Heidegger in terms of the inferiority of mechanized processes. When he talks of “simple craft conditions” I do think that mass produced things are more generic and indeterminate, however I find it difficult to practically be against technological progress because of the clear and undeniable benefits it has provided society, including but not limited to medical technology, food production, and subsequent longevity.
ReplyDeleteI may be unclear regarding what Heidegger says halfway down page 171 in the reading, but when he says “The shoemaker is not the shoe; but shoe-gear…” I read this to mean that a human, within their experience, can be considered equipment for the creation of things. Whether this is a metaphor and follows that Dasein is equipment for humans is unclear to me.
Heidegger makes it the case that certain situations make a equipment differ from regular objects. The attributes of a equipment are that is inconspicuousness, unobtrusive, and expressed non-obstinacy.
ReplyDeleteHis assessment on equipment calls into his assertions of authenticity. Equipment as an object is inauthentic. However, equipment used as a tool ready-in-hand authenticates the object.
I could be completely butchering old Heideggers work here but in a strange sense it reminds me of the Buddhist view of how we use tools. Where in some sense the tool is seen as an extension of self. I say this in a very specific context where in the use of the tool both the tool and the subject cease to exist in the activity and are thus united in the synthesis of the activity.
ReplyDeleteIf this view of Heideggers understanding the universe is correct then we are not our local fictions of self, but rather we are the worlds in which we live. So then does that mean in that context that delapidated house was the inner workings of the subject in the story? Or perhaps that inserts a false dualism, could it just be than that that subject and his world were one?