what is the beggining of philosophy?

Good!

The same person who posted 'this.'

'Being' and 'human being' are references which occur in language while you are 'Be'-ing. I think 'Be'-ing was here long before 'being'. Somewhere along the line we started assuming that everybody understands what is meant by 'Be'-ing, so instead of requiring that people 'Be' who they are we 'settled' for the representation of a thing called 'being'. To further add mass to the concept 'being', we conjured up enough evidence to support another concept called 'Human being'.

'Be'-ing hiding behind 'being' happens because it is our proclivity to 'turn over' the living of our life to the 'world' and the 'they' so then we can wash our hands of the burden of 'Be'-ing. Heidegger calls this 'desire to turn over', “thrownness”. “Thrownness” and “breathing” have something in common, you can't stop either one until the moment of your demise. Proclivity refers to a tendency, our 'desire to turn over' and 'breathing' are much more 'rampant' than a mere proclivity. Our 'desire to turn over' and 'breathing' do differ from one another, though. 'Breathing' doesn't require a constant vigil. It happens on its own.

The 'desire to turn over' the living of our life to the 'world' and the 'they' happens on its own also, unless 'you' do something about it. Choosing to 'Be' your 'self' is an 'instant' to 'instant' choice to not be “lived” by the 'world' and the 'they'. Wanting to be your authentic 'self' is an 'instant' to 'instant' dismantling of the 'house of cards' so that you can disentangle your 'self' from the labyrinth of concepts. Remember the zen master in a previous post? What he is telling you is that an empty teacup if much more valuable than one filled with tea.

Have you ever wondered why “Human” is the only “animal” (?) with the description 'being' after it? Why is that? Why are 'Human' and 'being' two separate distinctions? I mean, elephants can “be” an elephant, but there is no such thing as an “Elephant being”.

Hmm, it does make you wonder, doesn't it?

Your 'self' and the identity 'person' have nothing to do with each other.

If you go back and re-read my post you will see that I said "That 'feeling' you get when you watch these movies is 'you' reminding you of who you are."Nowhere did I say anything about the movie 'doing it' to you. I said 'you' remind 'you.No, I don't think you are 'Be'-ing your 'self'. Anybody who can consistently tell me that 'that' 'gave him a reminder' tells me that you still think there is a subject/object world. There is no 'thing' outside of you 'reminding' you of anything. When 'you' watch the movie, 'you' remind 'you' of who you are, 'Be'-ing. There is not one person on this planet who will be reminded of the same 'you' which is funny to me because everybody is trying to be different and they always end up being the same.Are you?

Yes, Dasein, my existential "self" i.e., my division, individuation from all else--my subjective self VS. the world of all objects minus the object, ME--is very much different from my social identities, i.e., male, adult, professional identity, American, ad naseum).
I am "thrown" into some identities and I make others. When I die I am thrown into the identity of corpse and deceased ancestor.

I am sorry Dasein but this is close to religious bullshit...there´s no fake path nor the "undressing" is needed...no "sin" to be purged...actually you don´t even escape your more then probable Christian heritage, do you ?

...whatever you do you simply have no way of not be-ing who "you" are...
(and mind me I know that you know it)...Thus the Being behind be-ing !

...you are the one who is afraid of that final necessary last step in the chain, you don´t want it over, is it ? drop the drama...stop the endless saga...

...be-ing as you present it, floats on air...you cannot have neither of them without the other...there´s no way around it no matter what you might say or try to come up with...

..."you" cannot walk without "legs"... just as legs without a walk are nothing at all...

Don't kill the messenger just because you don't like the message. One more time the substance of your ranting is nonexistent. However, your emotional ranting is noted by all and reveals a person who has clearly (to him) defined boundaries to express his own existence.

It is your self-imposed limitations that cause you to erupt. Interestingly, you are the only one to consistently have the same irrational reaction. Did some chord get sturck in you? Did your intellectual superiority get challenged?

Sir, sir, may I have some more ranting please?

Its not ranting...its intellectual consideration for you...I am fairly aware on your competence and not satisfied at all with your practical performance...

...you as many others around are to be more careful in reading me and my true intentions...

...you still have to comment what has been said above...waiting...

amen!

Like I said, ranting!!!I'm not here to "perform" for you or to make sure you're satisfied.I don't "have to comment" on anything, your majesty. You'll be waiting for some time.

BTW - your "intentions" are extremely clear.

...this is what happens when someone honestly confronts your beliefs time and again...in case you did n´t notice the repeated ranting has been yours with your mystical preaching and no proper justification in a philosophy forum...that, which was previously presented above in the last few posts, was a very much valid set of remarks on what you have been repeatedly impinging on others, and obviously is shown that you simply have no way of rationally replying to it thus recurring to this kind of tactics to actually evade the questions...considering your attitude so far, not only with me but with those who dare to challenge your mystifying set of beliefs, there´s no reason at all to keep addressing you in a less abrasive manner since you have never show any concern on that regard from the very beggining...
...what you present mostly is a self indulgent ill glued twist of words in which your self proclaimed knowledge on be-ing has no rational form of justification...when confronted with the paramount contradictions of your assessments your reaction is dismissive pompous and plain arrogant...
I have, in a more polite approach now for several times, tried to reason with you with no success whatsoever...your reply is in fact so far of and past any presented argument that addressing you turns any attempt of communication into a monochromatic monologue...until you really care to adequately confront the multiple remarks that several members have brought in, I said it before and will say it again, what you have to offer, is nothing other then plain and simple bullshit talk...
I really regret your lack of interest for advancing this thread into a more productive and constructive attitude...you prove to be a study case of solipsism.

amen.

Dont worry us philosophers are too busy with more important subjects in life, than something as trivial as spelling

"My only intent is to "advance this thread", He said, innocently appealing to the agreement of the masses.Did you ever take one moment to notice that your criteria "productive and constructive attitude" is synonymous with "your way". You have done a great job of letting the rest of us know that you have no room for anything that isn't "your way".

"I'll huff and I'll puff until I blow your house down" . . . You're no different than the bully on the playground, only you use pseudo intellectual fists.

I do not know what you mean, "my speeling is one of my finer qualities!

I found this to be interesting. What do you think about this philosophy?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_EsdNNztC8&feature=related

unless the spelling is misinterpreted...

I do not think that misspelling and misinterpretation is such a big deal among philosophers because they have no problem asking questions about what someone means to say!

If you look at philosophy, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that it is an event in time, and one that was usually waiting on increases of technology to prove points true of false in the physical world...And the meaning of words has changed... To give one example, the meaning of dialectics -which once meant to arrive at a sense of truth through conversation became in the middle ages the resolution of opposites...