what is the beggining of philosophy?

It makes you think you're some sort of separate 'thing' locked up inside a bag of skin.

Also, a 'thing' that can have concepts, theories and conjecture.

There is no "It" to "make you think". You're "muddying of the water" has to do with the possibility of there being an "It".

There are no 'things', 'concepts', 'theories', 'conjecture', or 'a bag of skin'.

You speak as if there is 'you' and that it is possible to have 'things', 'concepts', 'theories', 'conjecture', or 'a bag of skin'.

There is only 'you', Be-ing.

Oh right, I came before all of that. Duh.

My buzz cuzz.

I never gave up after three readings. I still enjoy Heidegger so not much has changed in this respect. But I see flaws with the enterprise of interpreting Sein, strictly because it is a logical impossibility from a modal standpoint (where I exist in an infinite number of possible worlds).

Perhaps I did make the leap after the third reading. In fact, it seems as though the only thing that really changed for you after reading the work 70+ times is your language and the way in which you mention by means of 'these'. So say I take on your language and use it. You would assume that I made 'the leap into Be-ing'. But perhaps I did not. Maybe the only way you can understand what I am trying to say is through your philosophical language. I could very well adopt the language, but be nowhere closer. So what is the distinct difference?
As far as language is concerned, nothing.

Ah, but words do have an 'expressive power'. Think about the musical score, the mathematical proof, a newspaper, a philosophical work, etc. Words are not simply words. There is something very expressive about them. They are in some way connected with the world, as though the world reaches up to it.

...correct...

That 'expressive power' is yours and yours alone. They are just words, you reading them is what gives them 'expressive power'(or not).

It has nothing to do with the world.

Philosophy is an object, like any other, a part of the infinite universe. Any attempt to describe an object in the universe is an attempt to slice a piece of the infinite an give it a name such as "philosophy" wich can not be done. Philosophy has no beginning or end. It just is. Time also is an object with no beginning and no end. All objects are part of the whole and indivisible, undescribible One. The only thing that is relevant is that which can not be described and follows the sentence "I am....."

Object; or art, or activity???

I can't dispute what you are saying about philosophy. However, you are speaking of a measurable, definable "object" which is represented by academic philosophy and the posts on this forum. Philosophy as we know it has nothing to do with the possibility of philosophy.

'Academic' philosophy has become a tradition and as Martin Heidegger said in Being and Time:Basically what Heidegger is saying is that academic philosophy and philosophy as we know it, is not philosophy, it is tradition.

I posted the following in another thread. I think its appropriate to this thread because you are talking about philosophy as an 'object'. BTW - academic philosophy has become an object like a plastic crucifix hanging from your rear-view mirror.What if "objective evidence" is not a requirement? What if "objective evidence" is nothing more than a distraction?

Like you Fil, I have been a curious person my whole life (much to the chagrin of the people who live on this planet in close proximity to me – LOL). I can see now that my insatiable curiosity was only for me and not meant for anybody else. Early on I studied morphology (ectomorph, mesomorph, endomorph) and I became fascinated by the patterns in life. Somewhere along the 'path', I had an inkling of an idea that all of what I was looking at had something to do with the person doing the looking. I had a short relationship with psychology and then moved on to my love affair with philosophy.

I had a long relationship with philosophy, however, Kant, Descartes, and even Socrates and Plato weren't providing any answers to the question “Who am I?” so I put philosophy back on the shelf.

In 1995 I was drawn to Being and Time by Martin Heidegger. My intent here is to give you a sequence of events and not to promote Heidegger. Anyhow, I picked up Being and Time and attempted to read it. I read a paragraph or 2 and realized that I wasn't interested in what Heidegger had to say so I put the book on the shelf. I would walk past that black and white dust cover and my eyes would be drawn to it.

Eventually, around the 60th reading, I realized that there was no Martin Heidegger “over there” to be read. I realized that I am the conversation I'm having (which is contained in Being and Time). In the same instant I realized that there was no Kant, Descartes, Socrates, or Plato. That all there was, was the conversation that I was 'Be'-ing while reading Kant, Descartes, Socrates, Plato, and Heidegger. Looking back now and having re-read some of those authors, I can tell you that Kant, Descartes, and Plato stop short of thinking all the way through to the 'truth' and at that point they have created “subject/object”, “animal rationale”, etc. Those concepts give you enough to allow you to form a conclusion but they don't take you to the 'truth' of what they were thinking.

Around the 71st or 72nd reading I woke up one morning experiencing that I was not the same as I have always been (subsequently, I referred to the experience as a 'leap'). I realized that 'Be'-ing is not a measurable, definable thing and that the ground I stand on can only be defined by me. The attempt to uncover the answer to “Who am I?” by using the world to define who I am will never give you the answer to “Who am I?”. That answer comes from somewhere else. The 'cosmic joke' that has been played on us is that the subject/object world is a very real illusion with lots of evidence for it.

If you spend your life looking for “objective evidence” you will always have the 'insatiable thirst' to uncover the answer to “Who am I?”, but you'll never satisfy that thirst.

One last thing. You can argue for or against what I said here. Your arguing will not produce any results or satisfaction. The only thing that will produce satisfaction for you is 'taking' the numerous 'hints' in what I've said and doing the work for your 'self'. Arguing for or against will not magically undo the work I've done and it won't stop me from 'Be'-ing.

Nothing in the past has ever happened but in the present moment, and nothing in the future will ever happen but in the present moment. Time is an illusion. There is no beginning end no end, just Now. The human mind is an aberration that has created dualism, I and Self. If you say good, you necessarily create bad. Philosophy and no philosophy. There is no philosophy, it just is. The Present is all there is, No-Thing else. Emptiness.

If you send me your address I'll send you a bow that you can wrap around all of that.

Logically, you are dead on. However, what you're saying shows up (for me) as a well-rehearsed speech. I know that speech because like many others on this forum, I've rehearsed it, too.

We're all good at giving speeches. What's next?

What more can we ask for? It's a good debate on an interesting subject. You guys present ideas that have never occurred to me before I read your posts.

Keep on truck'n, and thanks.

Good question! I happen to think that we capable of more than two people standing on a stage behind seperate podiums and competing for agreement or attempting to persuade those in the audience who disagree.

Most of what is presented in this forum is reactionary arguement based on traditional academic philosophy. In other words, the tradition is speaking most people into existence instead of people uncovering what's under traditional philosophy and defining who they are for themselves.

Quite frankly, I'm not interested in re-chewing food I've already eaten. I suspect that 99.9999% of the people who post on this forum are tired of the re-chewing also.

Philosophy is about 'getting to the bottom' of those sources I referred to in an earlier post (see the Heidegger quote). If we don't get to the bottom of 'traditional philosophical concepts', we don't uncover the 'source' of those concepts. We end up re-hashing the point where previous philosophers stopped thinking and call it philosophy.

The purpose of philosophy is to think through for your 'self' what has been presented by previous philosophers. The power of philosophy is the 'you, thinking through to the end'. The power of philosophy is in the questioning (quest), not in the 'skimming over the top' of life by taking the 'traditional academic philosophy' as true.I suggest that the 'ideas' you refer to have already occurred to you and that you re-cognize (recognize) them while reading. The light bulb couldn't be lit if it wasn't already there.

'You' are in the truth of philosophy. You can't discover who you are until you get to the truth of philosophy.

That is what we can ask for.

What I'm saying, what Heidegger is saying, doesn't occur in the words we are using. They occur in you 'Be'-ing.

Attempting to find what we are saying in the words we are speaking is you doubting what you already know.

Awareness. Its where philosophy begins and ends, as is all else.

Object is any form, such as an electron, neutron, cell, muscle, body, animal, rock, tree, thought, emotion, etc. Anything other than awareness.

Nice words but you really don't know what you're talking about.

Awareness is a concept which is a combination of characteristics. Where is this thing called awareness? Show it to me. Show me that awareness is more than a combination of characteristics (concepts) that support the existence of other concepts which are nothing more than combination of different characteristics.

Can't you see the labryinth of nonsense you've condemned your 'self' to?

"Awareness" is the Watcher. It watches the mind, thoughts, emotions, physical forms, etc. The mind can not watch itself just as an eye can not see itself. Emptiness/Awareness/The One/Space/Consciousness Awareness or whatever you want to call it (it can not be fully described with words) is what is left, an indivisible Being that you and I and every other object belongs and are a part of. We are one and the same.

Descartes was wrong when he said "I think therefore I am." A thought can not watch it self. Awareness, the ultimate and indivisible Being does.