Dasein/dasein

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Existentialism: Heidegger on Dasein and Death
Nicole Czerwinski
“Being and Time,” published in 1927 by German philosopher Martin Heidegger, is considered one of the most important existential texts. Sifting through this dense work of immense “linguistic obfuscation”, Heidegger urges us to get perplexed. He takes us on an existential journey of questioning a taken-for-granted concept: the meaning of being, the phenomenon of our everyday human existence.
The "meaning of being", the "phenomenon of our everyday human existence". Okay, but must that be encompassed in a "dense work of 'linguistic obfuscation'"?

That's precisely why I ask those convinced that they understand his "technical" jargon to bring his conclusions down out of the intellectual contraption clouds and describe the implications of it given "everyday human existence".

And, in particular, Dasein embedded in existential interactions in which conflicts occur over the contexts that are ever popping up "in the news". Dasein and the Kevin McCarthy brawl anyone?
Heidegger chooses to use the term “Dasein” for the human being ‘Da’ means there and “sein” means being in German ­- being there.
Being there. Where you are? Being here. Where I am? Your there and my here embedded in uniquely personal social, political and economic variables that may well be entirely different. What of Dasein then? How do we go about pinning down a "wise" description of it that takes into account these particular worlds construed in particular [and often very different] ways?

A discussion of Dasein and the Kevin McCarthy brawl among the politically liberal and the politically conservative philosophers?

Nope, let's stick to the "general description philosophical contraptions":
As Yalom writes, by renaming the human being as Dasein, Heidegger wishes to underline the dual nature of human existence. On one hand, the person is there as a constituted object, and at the same time the person is responsible for constituting themselves and their world. Heidegger’s ontological framework of ways of being-in-the-world goes beyond the idea of us as subjects, separated from a world of objects. Instead, he insists that we are not isolated from the world, but inextricably connected to our surroundings (“Umwelt”); through our being-in-the-world we are part of the larger fabric of existence.
How about this...

Given a particular newspaper headline in which conflicting points of view abound, we explore Heidegger's Dasein and my own dasein given this distinction:

"The ontological refers to the Being of a particular being, while the ontic refers to what a particular being...can or does do."

New thread, anyone?
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Belinda »

"The ontological refers to the Being of a particular being, while the ontic refers to what a particular being...can or does do."
I don't agree, and trust I'm not eccentric.

Ontological means pertaining to ideas and theories about what exists: Ontic pertains to what exists.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Belinda wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 2:41 pm
"The ontological refers to the Being of a particular being, while the ontic refers to what a particular being...can or does do."
I don't agree, and trust I'm not eccentric.

Ontological means pertaining to ideas and theories about what exists: Ontic pertains to what exists.
How about this...

Given a particular newspaper headline in which conflicting points of view abound, we explore the distinction between the ontological and the ontic.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Belinda »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:49 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 2:41 pm
"The ontological refers to the Being of a particular being, while the ontic refers to what a particular being...can or does do."
I don't agree, and trust I'm not eccentric.

Ontological means pertaining to ideas and theories about what exists: Ontic pertains to what exists.
How about this...

Given a particular newspaper headline in which conflicting points of view abound, we explore the distinction between the ontological and the ontic.
That sounds as if the author is using metaphysics jargon when she should be using everyday terminology . I suppose she means "-----the distinction between theories of what happened and what actually did happen".
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Belinda wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:38 am
iambiguous wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 5:49 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Jan 09, 2023 2:41 pm

I don't agree, and trust I'm not eccentric.

Ontological means pertaining to ideas and theories about what exists: Ontic pertains to what exists.
How about this...

Given a particular newspaper headline in which conflicting points of view abound, we explore the distinction between the ontological and the ontic.
That sounds as if the author is using metaphysics jargon when she should be using everyday terminology . I suppose she means "-----the distinction between theories of what happened and what actually did happen".
That's my point. Let's steer clear of the intellectual contraption jargon and, in regard to a particular context, explore our own respective distinctions between the theoretical and the existential. Abortion ontologically and abortion ontically.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Existentialism: Heidegger on Dasein and Death
Nicole Czerwinski
On Being

Heidegger chooses to use the term “Dasein” for the human being. ‘Da’ means there and “sein” means being in German ­- being there.
Being there instead of here culturally. Being either here or there historically. For any particular one of us, what does that matter?

Well, a great deal obviously. Being thrown at birth into this culture rather than that culture, and at one point in time rather than another can make all the difference in the world regarding how you are indoctrinated as a child...and regarding the experiences you are likely to have as an adult. And, of course, regarding all of the experiences you are not likely to have. Such that our moral, political and spiritual values can be vastly different.

Though, sure, shrug that off as though it were just incidental to your own moral, political and religious arguments here. And then those who point out that this is precisely the reason why, historically, philosophers came into existence. If we think really, really hard enough about right and wrong and good and bad behavior, we can invent our own deontological parameters in turn. We can rationally grasp epistemologically sound behaviors deemed to be the wisest.

That is, provided we steer clear of any actual context. Or provided we assume that, given any context, what we think the wisest, most rational, epistemologically sound behaviors are makes them so.
As Yalom writes, by renaming the human being as Dasein, Heidegger wishes to underline the dual nature of human existence. On one hand, the person is there as a constituted object, and at the same time the person is responsible for constituting themselves and their world.
Exactly my own point basically. There are things about us that are in fact objectively true...biologically, demographically. The actual facts embedded in our day to day interactions. Things about us that are true for everyone. Attributes, components, aspects of our lives that are not going to spark any heated discussions and debates.

But when in "constituting ourselves and our world" we choose behaviors deemed rational and virtuous by us, but then deemed anything but by others...what then? That's the part "I" construe to be the embodiment dasein. The "self" that is far more a subjective, existential construction rooted out in a particular world understood in a particular way.

And, of course, this is the part the objectivists among us make go away by insisting that through God or science or philosophy or ideology or nature...we can grasp the Real Me in sync with The Right Thing To Do.

Like you, perhaps?
Heidegger’s ontological framework of ways of being-in-the-world goes beyond the idea of us as subjects, separated from a world of objects. Instead, he insists that we are not isolated from the world, but inextricably connected to our surroundings (“Umwelt”); through our being-in-the-world we are part of the larger fabric of existence.
Exactly! My own dasein. The "larger fabric of existence" culturally, historically, personally. Heidegger's Dasein and the Nazis. My dasein and the Nazis.

Anyone care to go there?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Existentialism: Heidegger on Dasein and Death
Nicole Czerwinski
Bound to time – Existence, throwness and falleness

Each Dasein is intrinsically bound to the time it is here, the ephemeral period from our birth to our death.
Obviously, right?

Yet how many of us go to the grave not really giving this all that much thought? Some are intrinsically bound to an existence from the 5th century BC in China. Others from the 2nd century AD in Greece, others from the 14th century England, others from the 20th century America.

Now, how does the reality of that shape and mold the answers that might be given to the question that most draws me to philosophy:

"How ought one to live morally in a world awash in both conflicting goods and in contingency, chance and change?"

Of course before the birth of philosophy, most lived in relatively small communities...villages, hamlets. And right and wrong, good and bad then generally revolved around the assumptions that there was a proper place or role for everyone and everyone was expected to live out their life [given communal folkways, mores, traditions etc.] in their proper place or role. Often derived from one or another rendition of the Gods...often linked to natural phenomenon not yet understood "scientifically".

Then came surplus labor. Some of whom became philosophers. And, in the increasingly more modern world, ethics was born. It was thought that given all of the diverse circumstances into which historically and culturally one could be "thrown" at birth, it was necessary to establish the most rational manner in which one was to comport oneself around others.

And, of course, along with that came all of the many, many different flavors of moral objectivism.

And that's the part that "I" focus on in introducing the idea of dasein at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy.

And then the reaction here of those who are themselves moral objectivists. The threat I pose to them is not in suggesting that they are wrong and others are right in regard to moral obligations linked to philosophy and ethics, but that philosophy and ethics are themselves but manifestations of dasein existentially.

Given a particular context.

Unless of course I'm wrong. So, let's discuss that, I suggest...circumstantially.
Heidegger described Dasein in relation to time as a unity of three concepts: Existence, throwness, and fallenness. Existence presents our relation to the future, with potential (“Sein-können”) and possibilities. Throwness represents the past, and the fact that each of us is already thrown into a conditioned environment that limits our space of possibilities. Fallenness is the present that we are completely emerged in and identify with on a moment-to-moment basis; it includes our encounters with other Daseins through our shared existence. The challenge comes in being aware of these three temporalities.
And, sure, up in the clouds of abstractions this is "generally" the case for all of us. It's just that some of us "think this through" and arrive at the conclusion that human existence in a No God world is essentially meaningless ontologically and essentially purposeless teleologically.

So, in focusing in on "I" ontically, what are we to make of situations in which different people [some philosophers, some not] come to very different conclusions regarding right and wrong, good and bad behaviors.

In other words, Heidegger's Dasein out in the is/ought world today. The past and the present and the future "here and now".

My point is that many...most...fall into a frame of mind in the present that revolves around the assumption that one can live, as the existentialists say, more or less "authentically". The "temporality" then given both dasein as I understand it...and death.

Oblivion.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Existentialism: Heidegger on Dasein and Death
Nicole Czerwinski
Being towards death

For Heidegger, the revelation of the finite nature of our being, of our inevitable death, is what we constantly need to remember to live our lives genuinely, meaningfully, with integrity, and true to who we are.
Right.

As though in recognizing that one day we will topple over into the abyss that is oblivion isn't likely to prompt exactly the opposite frame of mind. Philosophically or otherwise. A genuine and meaningful life sustained all the way to the grave with integrity? And in the end...dust? Dust on our way back to star stuff? Why not react instead by thinking, "fuck it, since I'm going to die anyway, why not live my life entirely on my own terms. Take what I can, get what I can because one day it's all going to be gone forever."

Though, sure, I get the point from the other end as well. If this is all there is then live it in a way that those around you can pat you on the back precisely for being genuine and in living a meaningful life filled with integrity.

On the other hand, out in a particular world, what exactly ought that to revolve around? Which particular Humanism reflects the most genuine and meaningful and integrous life? After all, pick the wrong one and others might think of your life as anything but those things. What you think of as a noble existence they may see as the life of a scoundrel. Did Hitler live what he construed to be a genuine and meaningful life with integrity?
This awareness positions us towards our inevitable demise, a positioning that Heidegger called “being-towards-death.” Being-towards-death calls for several insights. For one, death happens in isolation for each of us; it is non-relational. No one can experience my death for me and neither can I for another; dying is the loneliest human experience.
Okay, but, again, each of of us here might live a life that is far removed from the lives that others live. Thus, even this can be understood in very, very different ways. Some might literally die alone, others surrounded by family and loved ones. Some might welcome death, others might be terrified of it. Some might experience it entirely on a personal, existential level, others given a philosophical or a spiritual background.

Though, sure, there's no getting around the fact that it is you who are dying, and not those about to mourn you. That will be encountered one by one for each of us. And who can say "in the end" how that might be experienced until it is the end.

And that's the part where my own dasein comes into play, right?
Furthermore, death is certain. It is undeniable that life comes to an end in death. When, how or where we die is unknown to us. Lastly, death is of the utmost importance and can’t be outstripped; it lies outside of our ability to master it. This is especially salient when considering the most important aspect of human functioning: to gain a sense of mastery over our environment and circumstances.
Only, of course, with death, none of us can say with certainty that "I" comes to an end. That's the profound mystery embedded in the existential relationship between "my birth", "my death", the "human condition" and "the existence of existence itself". We. Just. Don't. Know.

On the other hand, the distinction between those who really don't know when, how or where they will die...and those that do. For example, once all your appeals run out on death row and a day and a time is set for your extinction. How many of us haven't pondered ourselves in that situation?

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Existentialism: Heidegger on Dasein and Death
Nicole Czerwinski
For Heidegger, humans are unique in their ability to form a relationship with their own death. All animals strive for survival, but unlike humans, all others are lacking the conscious choices and self-awareness along the way.
But that is not the only way in which to focus in on our uniqueness. Yes, only human beings become self-conscious of the existential reality that will be own inevitable death. But there is also the fact that each of us comes to embody our own understanding of that as individuals. After all, there are countless narratives here. Some including God, some not. Some involving much to lose, some involving little. Some in experiencing a great fear, others in actually taking one's own life. Heidegger's Dasein seems aimed at bringing us all together under the same philosophical umbrella; my dasein , on the other hand, notes just how far removed our reactions to death might be given what can be entirely different indoctrinations as children and given entirely different sets of experiences as adults...out in diverse worlds historically and culturally and personally.
The importance in our relationship to death is that remembering that life will come to an end helps us figure out and create our life and selfhood in the present. Only when we constantly affirm and live in anticipation of our death (versus living in denial of it and distraction from it), can we realize our ability for choice and free action in the world.
Either that or [for some] results in a frame of mind concluding that whatever we "figure out", this is reflective only of the manner in which our thinking here is profoundly problematic. Given a very different indoctrination and set of experiences out in a very different world historically and culturally, who is to say just how different our figuring out might have been.

And isn't that precisely why some come to philosophy? Okay, the existential parameters of our lives are crucial in regard to the goals we set for ourselves. But, as philosophers, we can think that part through and come up instead with the "wisest" means needed in order to pursue the "wisest" ends. Then we can start with the pre-Socratics and explore all of the many different conclusions that philosophers over the centuries have come up with to facilitate our own trajectory.

So, how is that working out for you? And, indeed, some here have no doubt settled on a philosopher or a "school of philosophy" as encompassing the optimal frame of mind. Or, for the most arrogant and autocratic, the only frame of mind allowed.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Existentialism: Heidegger on Dasein and Death
Nicole Czerwinski
Authentic and inauthentic being towards death

Heidegger developed the idea that Dasein has two distinct modes of being-in-the-world:

1. A state of forgetfulness of being or everydayness (“Alltäglichkeit”), where we exist “inauthentically” towards death and

2. A state of mindfulness of being, or ontological mode, where our awareness of our personal death leads us towards “authenticity”.
Anyone here actually willing to acknowledge that in regard to their own death, they are the very embodiment of an inauthentic frame of mind?...an inauthentic lifestyle?

Me? I have basically come to believe myself that since no one really knows what actually does happen to "I" after we die, anything that one is able to think oneself into believing that minimizes the apprehension and the fear [God or No God] is the most authentic frame of mind. Though with God the extra bonus being that you acquire an objective morality on this side of the grave and salvation on the other side of it.

Nothing beats that of course. If only "I" could figure out a way to get back on that path myself.
In the inauthentic, everyday mode of being, where we spend most of our time, we live in the world of things. We find ourselves immersed in the everyday distractions and banalities of life, such as appearances, possessions and prestige. We exist lost in the “they-self” (“das Man”), the larger unavoidable societal forces that shape each of our individual lives and circumstances.
Indeed, though the overwhelming preponderance of mere mortals leave all that stuff to the clergy. Or they get caught up in any number of existential distractions -- family, work, arts, sports, sex, politics -- and concentrate more on being "happy" and "fulfilled" and "successful". Anything to keep "I" away from the part about death.

Besides, the "they-self" itself can encompass any number of "authentic" parameters historically and culturally and experientially. What it means to some here may be completely unintelligible to others. Their personal experiences are just too far remove for coherent communication much beyond the either/or world.

I've always interpreted Sartre's "Hell is other people" as revolving around how others seek to objectify us...to see us, assess us, evaluate and judge us in terms of their own moral and political prejudices. I merely take that further by suggesting that "Hell is 'I' itself". Why? Because, for some of us, we are unable even to objectify our own "self" in the is/ought world. Drawn and quartered there as well down to the bone.
Based on our thrownness into these circumstances, we inevitably live “in self-imposed servitude” per the terms established by the they-self, versus those most aligned with our own individuality. We live surrendered to that constant idle chatter of the world and how things are.
For example, think of those who allowed themselves to be immersed in the world that the Nazis invented.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Existentialism: Heidegger on Dasein and Death
Nicole Czerwinski
Our personal death is something we do not want to think about. We happily pay lip service to our relationship with death, but consider it only as something removed from ourselves. Death is something that either happens to someone else or is far ahead in our future, versus, as Mullhall describes it, the “non-actual shadow of our every actual moment”.
Yes, what choice do we have as the only animals able to grasp the reality of "my death". Even able to grapple with death itself in a forum such as this.

Philosophically.

But, of course, it is one thing to ponder death intellectually -- analytically? -- and another thing altogether to come to grips with it existentially. The real deal death is something that even philosophers will have their own subjective narrative regarding. In other words, there does not appear to be the "wisest" manner in which to think and to feel about it even among those of our ilk.
Heidegger reminds us that “in such a way of talking, death is understood as an indefinite something which, above all, must duly arrive from somewhere or other, but which is proximally not yet present-at-hand for oneself, and is therefore no threat”. The they-self supports such illusions and “provides a constant tranquillization about death”.
Anyone here doubt what the number one illusion has been now for centuries? Ever since "the Gods" were reduced down to a God, the God Himself. The opiate that is not just of the masses either.

Or those who are undecided about God but, in the interim, on this side of the grave, throw themselves into one or another ideological crusade...fascism, communism, populism.

Then this part...
In the everyday mode we remain comfortably ignorant of our responsibility for and authorship of our lives. Yalom elaborates that we live in denial of and flight from our freedom and self-examination for the sake of comfort, security and simplicity; “we constitute the world in such a way that it appears independent of our constitution”. Heidegger uses the word “heimlich,” or homely to describe this coziness in our everyday relationship to the world.
Of course what this means to me, it may not mean to you. From my frame of mind, it revolves around those who throw themselves into all of the many "distractions" that can take one away from the reality of "my death". It might be pop culture or sports or a career or sex or the arts or politics. Something -- anything -- that becomes important enough to provide you with an escape from what it all must inevitably come down to...nothingness.

Here though the more you accumulate fulfillment and satisfaction from these things, the greater the loss when the Grim Reaper does come around. So, most will still fall back on God every Friday, Saturday or Sunday.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Existentialism: Heidegger on Dasein and Death
Nicole Czerwinski
Awakening experiences

...on occasion we are jolted out of our inauthentic being, in a sudden clarity and realization that we have lost our way.
Again, however, what does this mean in regard to our day to day lives? After all, for many it revolves around hypocrisy. They had chosen their own One True Path but they no longer practiced what they preached. Then they have an experience that reminds them of this. And they can either choose to live "authentically" again or not.
The signpost for these awakening or boundary experiences is what Heidegger described as the call of our conscience, which rings loudly through the experience of existential anxiety and guilt. We have labeled those emotional experiences as unwanted, but Heidegger urges us to see these emotions as part of a transformative and constructive force that brings us in connection with ourselves.
Only this "general description philosophical assessment" can mean practically anything to each of us as individuals. What does being "connected" to yourself mean to you? What does your conscience tell you to pursue in order to minimize anxiety and guilt? How can that not be profoundly intertwined in my own rendition of dasein? Just look at Heidegger's own life in regards to the options he chose.
The world that seemed so homey and cozy, in this mood defined by anxiety, becomes a meaningless spectacle, a world of loneliness, mercilessness, and nothingness, which seems uncanny (“unheimlich”), strange and precarious.
Now, from my frame of mind, this "mood" revolves around nihilism. The belief that in a No God world there is no way in which to establish an essential meaning and purpose in one's life. Which, ironically enough, in my view, is why any number of the objectivists among us cling so fiercely to their very own "authentic" One True Path. Precarious is the last thing they want to feel regarding the choices they make in life.

Sieg Heil, for example.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Existentialism: Heidegger on Dasein and Death
Nicole Czerwinski
Here [through "awakening experiences" above] we can make a resolute choice of listening, understanding, and wanting to have a conscience. Critchley writes that anxiety is the first taste of our freedom from things and other people, a first step on the path of becoming ourselves.
That again.

Find yourself. Become yourself. Be yourself.

And how is that not the first step to becoming an objectivist? After all, in becoming yourself, that can only unfold out in a particular world historically and culturally. It can only involve a set of uniquely personal experiences that others may have no real grasp of at all. So, when you attempt to share your "true self" with others, why wouldn't you expect there to be a "failure to communicate?"

Much as it unfolds over and over again right here. On the other hand, what is it that precipitates the vast majority of the conflicts in places like this. Of course: the parts that I focus in on.

Right, Mr. Objectivist?
Critchley describes the experience as going from “being a player in the game of life that I loved” to becoming “an observer of a game that I no longer see the point in playing.”
All the more reason to quell the anxiety by doubling down on the particular font of choice. God or No God. Make your game the only game in town. And judge others by the extent to which they play the game by your rules. Or, perhaps, the rules of the Führer?
Yalom cites Heidegger’s image of a breakdown of the machinery to describe this transition; only through the breakdown do we become aware of its functioning. Next to anxiety, for Heidegger, guilt is a fundamental part of Dasein, and results from our awareness that we are constantly lagging behind our possibilities and failing our potential for authentic being. As Heidegger writes “In Dasein there is undeniably a constant ‘lack of totality’ which finds an end with death”. After all, we often die unfulfilled with many possibilities left unexplored.
In the interim, however, the transition to becoming one's True Self can involve confronting many conflicting One True Paths. So, of course, do your utmost to assure yourself that your own One True Path is the one that, say, all rational and virtuous men and women are, say, obligated to take?

There's the path that he chose "out in the world" around him back then, and the one that you choose "out in the world" around you today.

This and the arguments that "I" make regarding those One True Paths.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Last edited by iambiguous on Wed Mar 15, 2023 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by Agent Smith »

Did the prophecy come true? :?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Dasein/dasein

Post by iambiguous »

Existentialism: Heidegger on Dasein and Death
Nicole Czerwinski
Heidegger writes “[d]eath is a possibility-of-Being, which Dasein itself has to take over in every case”. Here we grapple with our “fundamental human responsibility to construct an authentic life of engagement, connectivity, meaning and self-fulfillment”.
Then there is the manner in which I construe dasein here: existentially, subjectively, individuallly. It's not just that each new day we are confronted with the possibility that, for whatever reason, "this is the day I die", but also that down through the ages there have existed any number of "stories" that mere mortals have told themselves to make that inevitable reality less...dreadful? fearful? ghastly?

What narrative do you hold on to?

And then the beauty of these various reactions is that all we need do is to believe them. To have "faith"' in them. Others may scoff at them, sure, but that doesn't make your own comfort and consolation go away.
We are fully self-aware, embrace our possibilities and limits, face absolute freedom and nothingness, and are anxious in the face of them. Acknowledging this responsibility leads us to the conclusion that opinions of others and our everyday objects of distractions are not necessary in the undertaking of being authentic, and that we alone are capable of changing our circumstances.
Things that philosophers say. Well, serious philosophers anyway.

How about you? Does this seem applicable in regard to your own thinking about death? Me, I'm far more inclined to sweep authenticity under the rug [as a pie in the sky intellectual contraption] and stick with the distractions: music, film, novels, the good stuff on TV.
Heidegger describes that “[h]ere it can become manifest to Dasein that in this distinct possibility of its own self, it has been wrenched away from the “they”.
That works for me. I never tire of wrenching myself away from "them". Indeed, the farther away from the maddening crowd the better, I always say. Though I'm not entirely sure what to make of the fact that I still keep coming here. But I'm working on it.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Post Reply