what is "consciousness"?

I value "subjective" truth as much as I do "objective" truth--perhaps more.

Heidegger speaks to you, 'Be'-ing. You “feel no need to read” because you know this. When you read Being and Time you are returning to your 'self'. The 'rough patches' you speak of are when you 'look in the mirror' and get 'overwhelmed' with 'Be'-ing, then you turn and hightail it out of there.

When you read Being and Time, you force your 'self' to face those moments of 'looking into the mirror' ('Be'-ing). The 'rough patches' you refer to don't happen in the next reading because you have already 'faced' them and have resolved them for your 'self'.

I am on page 159 of Being and Time in the middle of my 74th reading. The 'rough patches' don't happen as much as they did in the past and when they do it's because I bumped into something I haven't uncovered before.

For instance, I recently (a few pages ago) realized that the traditional way of addressing philosophy (academia) doesn't work because traditional philosophy skims over the top of the subject matter and avoids getting to the bottom of it by turning what is being talked about into 'things' (concepts) that everybody already understands (more 'fleeing in the face of'). Since the concepts are already understood there is no reason to dig in. However, if you do dig in and get to the bottom of it, you discover that 'you' (who you really are) are in the truth when you get to the bottom of it. Let me restate what I just said. When you uncover what's at the bottom of it all, you discover who you are.

If you 'skim' over the top of everything by using concepts to represent, you never get to the bottom of it all and you never find out who 'you' really are.

There is no illusionary self. What you're referring to is where you go when you 'flee in the face of' 'Be'-ing.

Also, I have noticed that you speak in dualities most of the time as if there is this other 'entity' that sometimes represents you.

Let me be very clear about this. There is only 'you' 'Be'-ing. Sometimes you're heading towards 'Be'-ing and sometimes you 'flee in the face of' 'Be'-ing and hide in the world.

In either case, there is only 'you' 'Be'-ing, making choices.

In the previous post I didn't cover this as well as I should have.What I should have said was "You “feel no need to read” because you know this and you are in the middle of 'fleeing in the face of'. When you "feel the need" you should pick up Being and Time. When you don't "feel the need", you should recognize that this is what it looks like when you 'flee in the face of' 'Be'-ing.

We all live with a mix of objective and subjective truth. It's a matter of trying to direct our own lives in a way that "we can live with our true selves."

I agree. But I generally tend to think of "objective truths" as those things that we all agree on because of the similarities shared by all humans. They are perhaps not "objective" in the sense that they have truth value independent of our perception.

Cyracuz, What you call objective truth based on raises more questions than answers.

Can you describe for us what "similarities are shared by all humans?"

We all have human brains and human senses. We all have memories of growing up, and we have all been taught a whole lot about the world before we were capable of understanding it, having to take it on faith, or trust.

My question is, where does objective truth come into this picture that are common to everybody?

I am not sure, to be honest. I'm trying to think of an objective truth, but I can't come up with any at the moment. If you can, and you share it, I might be able to decide if my line of thinking is worth pursuing.

I'm not able to answer that question; that's the reason I had to ask you. It's because I can't see objective truth that applies to everybody.

I have the same problem, which is perhaps a good reason to question the validity of such a concept. But from what I understand "objectivity" is problematical in itself.

If you search wiki on "objectivity (philosophy)" you find the article, but it has a big disclaimer saying that the article has issues..

I believe concepts are okay. We need to question any thesis that we think have value to understanding them. After all, all we are doing is seeking truth.

The best I can come up with is that objective truth are truths that all subjects agree on. But perhaps I'm just repeating myself now...

The only objective truth that seems to be universal are birth and death. Even then, depending on ones religious belief, that dynamic changes to a new area of debate.

Yes. An atheist believe he ends when he dies. A christian believes his true life will begin when he dies. A hindu believes he will be born again. So birth and death doesn't mean the same to all people.

For myself, I tend to think in terms of reincarnation, of an end of this illusion and the start of another.

Surely, C.I., you are not willing to work Cyracuz to death, a death by listing all the things that humans share. It should be enough to describe us humans as of one species and then refine that by subclassifying us culturally and then perhaps of particular historical eras, etc. But listing specifics?

Just trying to be helpful. I thought the subject matter interesting enough.

I sometimes believe the question is just as important as the answer.

You know, of course, I was just trying to be amusing.

I really think it is a shame sometimes that a2k doesn't have a function similar to the "i like" button on facebook.

surely the subjective nature of human experience is an objective truth?