Ignore the introduction by whomever, amd listen to the translated words of a genius Heidegger. Rule 1 in philosophy is do the best you can at reading the original and avoid interpretation until after you have spent significant time with the original.
The problem with an introduction like this is it doesn’t tell us if it means everything it’s saying literally, it makes some bold claims, like that a house stops existing once it has turned into vapor and ash after burning down. Am I ridiculous for asking a similar question about a house that has been painted? In other words, when does a thing stop being the thing it was before? I think Heidegger might agree that the way that an entity is is that it stops being as soon as its temporal nature takes over, annihilating it with each new moment and making it new, bringing into view an entity that I am tempted to refer to as its more general being, the average of its being, or its narrative being. You can’t just say that something stops existing because it leaves one state and enters another, or if you do, you would need to explain the function of this dynamic. It makes sense to say to your family “our house is burned down. It’s gone.” and does not make sense to say “our house has been painted, it’s gone.” but if we are to take an ontological approach to this idea then we must not be so focused on our social relationships to things and entities in general. The only reason we say the house is or isn’t there is because its ability to do what we recognize as its function has changed. This becomes more complicated with a person, animal, or Dasein, because, what is the function of a person but to be, have been, and be a projected being into the future? In other words, is the purpose of Dasein not to remain temporal? Does a thing that existed within the space of time stop existing simply because that time has passed? In other words, does a thing that existed in one moment truly become an annihilated thing in the next, in other words, not being able to “be” as it was? In other other words, what is annihilation if not the essence of temporality? The ability for a thing to change its function and become something else? For a Dasein this happens constantly, as we orient ourselves are we but constantly searching for a particular entity or entities which orient us towards an entity that will fulfill whatever desire we have for the moment? The ability for us to be oriented towards a grand entity, such as the Tao, God, or any smaller entity that expresses itself as being Being (but it is either not Being or not an entity, and we are never sure to know such a thing until we are sure of it, and once that happens we must realize we have only reached a kind of assuredness about it and the ability to transcend through this dynamic in such a grand Being-like being should be seemingly infinite is something which is afforded to us as we transcend through accordance with certain entities and become more able to agree with Being’s indifference to our being. Idk just spitballing here but it would follow that the house itself might transcend, changing its function and become a different entity but can I even say that the house had any purpose in the first place? It didn’t ask to be lived in and it certainly didn’t care if it was lived in so what is its purpose to itself if it can have one? To be. Our purpose for it is meaningless to any entity that doesn’t believe in purpose outside of being. This proves to me that the house has not changed its purpose but its organization, and this organization does not affect its purpose except to us. Unless Purpose has priority which defines our purpose as more than the purpose of an indifferent being in Being we cannot say that the house is not the house anymore, but we can say that to call it a house and define it in such a way is to comport oneself towards the entity which says that our priority in regards to the house’s being is closer to being Priority, and it is not. We cannot even conceive of the priority of Being in relation to a structure like a house, its components, its conception. If it is to have an essential being as a house, is it that being which is closest to Being or our own being? This would have to depend entirely on a seemingly arbitrary entity which controls Dasein’s organizing of prioritized entities. This becomes confusing as it is difficult to decipher where this prioritization of entities comes from, if not from Being itself. This might seem to imply that Being itself has a priority in being, but it does not. Being is merely an observer of being, and allows it to exist by seeing, which becomes a kind of being for it which we can never possibly conceive of. The highest form of being might be the being that Being has, which I am tempted to consider might be the being of entities as Being fills them to become entities. This makes me think that the distinction between Being and being is arbitrary, but again, it cannot be that way. For Being to exist, it must have infinite ways of being, in a sense of a superbeing which ignores or does not reflect certain aspects, properties, or entities of the being within Being. For Being, however, it may be possible for it to transcend the necessity for ignorance to being entirely, manifesting dissonances in being which seem to defy the laws of physics and life itself. Where am I going with this? I don’t fucking know I’m just saying shit I guess how’s everyone’s day going? My birthday was yesterday I’m 25 now
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the-if he-if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not-that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. … Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.” -Bill Clinton 1998
@@thenowchurch6419small potatoes? 🥔 let me make one thing to you clear my obviously infirmed friend, you have potato and then you have pototo. There can be not one without the other! One side of potato is hot and otherside of pototo is freezing cold. It must be cooked and cooked to perfection to be a 🥔 and even then without the right ingredients it's but a simple thing. But go on enjoy simple things, only life is simple.
I only care for it after I’ve begun to think about things myself and even then i don’t take anything literally. There’s interpretation in everything and anyone that says “this is what this means” runs the risk of being an idiot. I don’t think even Heidegger got directly to the bottom of what he meant when he wrote this
I don’t understand the purpose or the value of trying to describe the human condition as something special or unique. For me it is all very simple, we are just another living organism whose particular evolution has provided us with certain pattern solving functionality. But beyond the hormonal drivers of survival through to the point of transferring our genetics through to subsequent generations, there isn’t anything more of actual significance to say about us beyond that of the trees or insects.
In a larger sense &/or put into a visual metaphor, & not I think irrelevantly as a part of my overall intelectual framework, I agree with u. None the less; as well as more comfortably, I often find it valuable to explore invitingly different points of view than my own, & in this instance (& potential case) maybe important to explore those quite connected differences among, yet specific to my species, from the inside, while surveying & acknowledging the other differences from outside them in order to try getting a bette, generalr grasp of Consciousness. In brief, please keep talking -- cuz I'm listening & (may even) get it...
It isn’t so much about a human being so much as it is about a being understanding itself and thusly questioning being from my understanding. In other words, it is the way that a self-understanding being lives in accordance with entities, and this is indeed what a tree and an insect does
