Heidegger’s Ways of Being

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Now
Posts: 1205
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

Heidegger’s Ways of Being

Post by Philosophy Now »

Andrew Royle introduces Heidegger’s key ideas from his classic Being and Time, showing how they lead towards his concept of Being-towards-death.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/125/Heideggers_Ways_of_Being
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Heidegger’s Ways of Being

Post by jayjacobus »

Philosophy Now wrote: Sun Jun 16, 2019 3:05 pm Andrew Royle introduces Heidegger’s key ideas from his classic Being and Time, showing how they lead towards his concept of Being-towards-death.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/125/He ... s_of_Being
"By referring to ‘essence’, Heidegger begins to articulate what he means by is-ness or Being. For example, take a table: the essence of a table is the very thing that makes a table a table and not something else, whatever this is. We may for instance say that a table is a table if something can be placed upon it, and if it doesn’t fulfill this criteria then it is not a table. In the same way, the essence of Dasein – what Dasein is – is that it exists. If it doesn’t exist, then it is not Dasein. Without existence, Dasein wouldn’t have any ground (or Being) to ask the question of Being at all. Later Existential philosophers, such as Jean-Paul Sartre, have referred to this primacy of existence as the ‘first principle of Existentialism’: as Sartre put it, ‘existence precedes essence’. For Heidegger, the essential quality of Being is found in its very existence."

Perhaps fundamentally but not by means of observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. Meaning is in the sort and if the sort includes "table" as well as Heiegger's being, the sort is distorted in his mind.

We are all slaves to the sort but the sort is subjective and we chose a sort that favors are own self in some ways. But other people may see us as average in almost every way. Only the top 1% have recognition in any sort. So what's the use in being if the sorts are against us? Does Heidegger provide an answr?
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Heidegger’s Ways of Being

Post by -1- »

Andrew Royle wrote: Therefore, rather than asking ‘What is Being?’, Heidegger begins with the question ‘ Whom is asking the question of Being?’ This question – the whom of Being – includes the possibility that the questioners themselves may actually contribute in some way to the Being under question. Heidegger’s starting point thus asks whom is this Being “that in its Being is concerned about its very Being.” (Being and Time, p.11)
What the FUCK? I thought that A. proper English was part of the requirements of articles published in Philosophy Now and B. being able to philosophize, generally speaking, requires an acute sense of understanding, which requires precision in language skills by the communicators.

This guy, Andrew Royle, despite having an English-sounding name, has only rudimentary but not fine knowledge of the English language.

He uses "whom" instead of "who" in the nominal case of the interrogative personal pronoun.

The nominal case of the personal interrogative pronoun is "who". Only those use "whom" instead of "who" where the nominal case is required, who are complete academic zeroes, and whish to elevate their perceived academicity by using "whom". But "whom" is the objective case of "who", and it ought not to, it must NOT be used as a nominal case. Therefore asking "Whom has forgot to close the door" is a sentence only a snobbish ignoramous bastard will write.

For instance (I can't believe I need to give this language lessons to editors and academics who have qualified to publish in a highly steemed journal):

"I kicked Fred." - "Whom did you kick?" is proper, as the object of the transitive verb is Fred, and therefore asking the object in a question, the pronoun "whom" is used.

"I kicked Fred." - "Who kicked Fred?" is proper use of "who", as the person doing the kicking is not an object of the action verb, but the noun of the sentence.

"I kicked Fred." - "Whom kicked Fred?" is completely wrong.

"I kicked Fred." - "Who did you kick?" It is colloquial, and fully accepted in proper usage in English. In a formal writing, it ought to be "Whom did you kick."

I should have thought that knowing English is a prerequisite for qualifications of editors. Now I am beginning to understand more and more about the poor quality of thought in the articles published in Philosophy Now. If the editor is unable to differentiate between well-written and wrongly written texts, then how can we expect the editor to differentiate between good and bad articles, between articles that make sense and don't make sense, between articles that are valuable and that are worthless crap?

The picture about the quality and standards of this magazine is getting clearer and clearer as the picture gets more and more into focus.
Impenitent
Posts: 4329
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Heidegger’s Ways of Being

Post by Impenitent »

translations from German aside...

-Imp
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Heidegger’s Ways of Being

Post by -1- »

Impenitent wrote: Tue Jun 18, 2019 5:24 pm translations from German aside...

-Imp
Germans know the difference between "wer" (who) and "wem" (whom). It is the stupid kind of snobbish idiotic writers who don't know shit from fuck all.
Post Reply