- Jul 5, 2009
- Reaction score
How's it going?
LOL. I've just finished off the last remnants of a bottle of wine (Walmart-bought, so cheap ersatz shit) but I'm thinking of what Heidegger talks about in Being and Time insofar as none of the philosophers in the Western tradition EVER got to what BEING meant and so sort of skated around it like it was an impenetrable center of an ice rink. Hamlet only got it half-right when he asked "to be or not to be" because really the only question is "to be." To be, in Heidegerrian terms, is essentially a combination of being-with and being-toward-death. We are not only "with" others but also our lives are INTIMATELY directed toward death (even though we never actually experience it). "Being-with" is a kind of love we share with others in the world, and our existence is a kind of balance between the my-self (the self that is away from distractions, from curiosity, from gossip) and the they-self (the self that is social, embedded in the social framework, "hears" and is interpellated by discourse). But our being-towards-death ACTUALIZES us to the extent that our existence is circumscribed by the very notion of our "my-self" that tells us that death will come. But, of course, how can death be an actual possibility of our existence if we never actually experience it?I didn't notice this thread until now, I'll respond with a query: what does it mean to exist? And just how many drinks have you had lol
Missed you too en-you-ee.hello, missed you shem.
My professor at college (who's German, old, very old, and obsessed with Heidegger) would like a word with you.heidegger is bullshit and a bad way to interpret reality