what is the beggining of philosophy?

@Dasein,

Quote:

The “sin” and the “lie” you mentioned is the cover-up.

All religion is based on the “sin” and the “lie” (the cover-up). Since the 'sin' and the 'lie' is our 'throwness' we are all 'guilty' of 'irresoluteness'. It is this 'guilt' that religion uses to hold our 'salvation' hostage.

When I made the statement {Here is something to think about! If I am not mistaken there was a time when man did not lie nor sin but this was very long ago!} I had something different in mind!

What I was referring to is mainly for those who believe in evolution.

If you think that we were at one time a very simple animal like most animals that are not able to convey ideas and so forth then how could we have lied or sinned?

It was because our brains evolved to be able to use and construct concepts!

Can a dog lie to another dog? Can a dog even know that he is a sinner?
Animals may know that they are in trouble when we raise our voice and tell them no or when another animal growls at them and so forth.

I do not think that we, "the simple animals we were at one time were any more able to to lie or sin than what modern day animals are able to!

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

It was because our brains evolved to be able to use and construct concepts!

The "sin", the "lie", and the "ability to use and construct concepts" is the "cover-up" I was referring to. Concepts are just what you said about them. They are human constructs! They are a combination of characteristics gleaned from the phenomena they refer to.

You use concepts like animal rationale, human being, mind, consciousness, evolution, simple animal, subject/object, man, woman, child, Mexican, White, Black, Russian, Jew, American, Israeli, Christian, Catholic, Buddhist, Lutheran, etc. to represent a miniscule aspect of a "combination of characteristics" of 'Be'-ing.

There is no animal rationale, human being, mind, consciousness, evolution, simple animal, subject/object, man, woman, child, Mexican, White, Black, Russian, Jew, American, Israeli, Christian, Catholic, Buddhist, Lutheran, etc. There is only 'you', 'Be'-ing and representing living as if it is a bunch of concepts.

When your thinking is challenged you wave your arms in the air like a primate and grunt your disapproval as if you are some kind of authority with a territory to defend.

The “sin” and the “lie” I mentioned is that you live your life as if who you are is an accumulation of all those “concepts” you revere so much.

It is obvious to all of us that you will never make a chicken by putting all of the parts together, so why the hell do you become so stupid when it comes to humans, 'Be'-ing? Is it because that is what all of the other lemmings have been doing for over 2500 years? Anybody know where a cliff is?

Seriously, the way humanity is represented on this forum and in the world is ass-backwards. Who you are is not an accumulation of characteristics. The only way you will know what I am talking about is by disentangling your 'self' from the labyrinth of definitions, concepts, and theories provided to you by the 'they' and the 'world' and to think for your 'self'.

Aren't you upset just a little about the predicament you were born in to? Are you that numb to it?

1 Reply

@Dasein,

Quote:

The “sin” and the “lie” I mentioned is that you live your life as if who you are is an accumulation of all those “concepts” you revere so much.

Are you suggesting that concepts are not very important? If so how else would you be able to express what it is that you are trying to relate at this moment without them?

Quote:

When your thinking is challenged you wave your arms in the air like a primate and grunt your disapproval as if you are some kind of authority with a territory to defend.

I try not to act out emotional when I am learning because it seems to hinder my ability to use logical reasoning.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Your right reasoning logic, we dependent upon concepts, ideas and theories in order to communicate at all. Even though Dasein claims that he has "disentangled" himself from the "web of concepts", he hasn't. It's not possible.

"When your thinking is challenged you wave your arms in the air like a primate and grunt your disapproval as if you are some kind of authority with a territory to defend"-Dasein

In order to communicate with anyone we require concepts, agreed upon concepts about things, with shared meanings.

"The “sin” and the “lie” I mentioned is that you live your life as if who you are is an accumulation of all those “concepts” you revere so much"-Dasein

Is this what we do Dasein? You seem to be suggesting, as you have done on previous posts, that people "hide" behind concepts etc. Is this not what you are doing as you post up your Heideggerian philosophy, the philosophy, ideas, concepts and theories, that you seem to revere so much?

I think you need to turn your accusations on yourself, and come out from behind the concepts that you seem to depend on, and actually have a discussion, rather than perpetuating the same old ideas.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Are you suggesting that concepts are not very important? If so how else would you be able to express what it is that you are trying to relate at this moment without them?

What I am saying is that concepts are way too important and that a carpenter would never try to convince you or anybody else that he IS his hammer, the saw, or the other tools he uses. He is very clear that he is not his tools.

However, you and the rest of humanity don't see animal rationale, human being, mind, consciousness, evolution, simple animal, subject/object, man, woman, child, Mexican, White, Black, Russian, Jew, American, Israeli, Christian, Catholic, Buddhist, Lutheran, etc. as tools to be used.

You live your life as if you ARE the animal rationale, human being, mind, consciousness, evolution, simple animal, subject/object, man, woman, child, Mexican, White, Black, Russian, Jew, American, Israeli, Christian, Catholic, Buddhist, Lutheran, etc.

What I'm saying is that the 'tools' you use to represent 'Be'-ing don't do justice to the phenomenon that you are. You wouldn't use a carpenter's tools to bake bread and you wouldn't use a baker's tools to tune a car.

The concepts we use to represent 'Be'-ing are the wrong tools to produce the result we are attempting to produce. Since the proper tools haven't been provided, we will have to invent them.

The only way I have found to invent those tools is to stop using the tools we have been provided by disentangling your 'self' from the labyrinth of definitions, concepts, and theories provided to you by the 'they' and the 'world'. As you 'deconstruct' those definitions, concepts, and theories you will find that 'you' will show up in their place and you will have the tools you need.

However, be forewarned. Just because you have the tools doesn't mean that the rest of the people who are entangled in the definitions, concepts, and theories will have any idea of what you are talking about.

If you keep washing your food in the stream before you eat it eventually the rest of the monkeys will catch on.

1 Reply

@Dasein,

the concept of "deconstruct", is something that you depend upon Dasein. Its the concept, or the "tool" of deconstruction, that you yourself advocate the use of, in order to "uncover" yourself". But that therefore means that you are still "entangled", as you would say, within this particular concept, and others, which you do not deconstruct, namely Heidegger's philosophy.

But what I thinks going to happen, is that my posts will just be interpreted by you as coming from someone who is "entangled in the definitions, concepts, and theories" of the world, and therefore you will just dismiss this outright. As if the concepts you are dependent on do not come from the world, or as if you are somehow totally severed from all conceptual understanding, which is absurd.

2 Replies

@existential potential,

existential potential wrote:

the concept of "deconstruct", is something that you depend upon Dasein.

The "concept" is what you rely on. I actually deconstruct the thinking that is involved in the "concepts' you mention and uncover the phenomenon that is underneath the concept (or the source of the concept). That is where 'Be'-ing shows up.

As long as I have been reading your posts you have been in charge of the 'wiggle room'.

existential potential wrote:

Its the concept, or the "tool" of deconstruction, that you yourself advocate the use of, in order to "uncover" yourself". But that therefore means that you are still "entangled", as you would say, within this particular concept, and others, which you do not deconstruct, namely Heidegger's philosophy.

Absolute idiocy!
Go ahead and connect all of your dots together to rationalize your righteousness. The only one you are imprisoning is your 'self'.

existential potential wrote:

But what I thinks going to happen, is that my posts will just be interpreted by you as coming from someone who is "entangled in the definitions, concepts, and theories" of the world, and therefore you will just dismiss this outright. As if the concepts you are dependent on do not come from the world, or as if you are somehow totally severed from all conceptual understanding, which is absurd.

What you see in the mirror is your 'self'.

Thanks for reminding me of why I put you on ignore.

1 Reply

@Dasein,

"I actually deconstruct the thinking that is involved in the "concepts' you mention and uncover the phenomenon that is underneath the concept (or the source of the concept)"-Dasein

I think I've known this for some time, but there really isn't any way of having a reasonable, level discussion with you. You make numerous claims about how you "deconstruct the thinking that is involved in concepts", and how you've become "resolute" etc, but all these seem to me to be are empty self-serving claims, designed to make you feel better about yourself.

I'm yet to actually read a genuine post from you, or a post that isn't full of same ideas said in a slightly different way.

1 Reply

@existential potential,

I completely understand why you haven't read a genuine post from me. But that doesn't have anything to do with what I post and there's nothing I can do anything it.

existential potential wrote:

I think I've known this for some time, but there really isn't any way of having a reasonable, level discussion with you. You make numerous claims about how you "deconstruct the thinking that is involved in concepts", and how you've become "resolute" etc,

Evidently, you're not capable of taking a hint.

existential potential wrote:

but all these seem to me to be are empty self-serving claims, designed to make you feel better about yourself.

Again, you are looking in the mirror and seeing yourself. and, how the eff do you know if they are empty or not? Since when does your effin' opinion mean anything to anybody?

Absolute arrogance!!!

1 Reply

@Dasein,

I do not think that existential potential is trying to be mean, "I actually think that he is trying to speak to you in a kind way!

We all get things wrong at times!

Wasn't it you that said When your thinking is challenged you wave your arms in the air like a primate and grunt your disapproval as if you are some kind of authority with a territory to defend.?

1 Reply

@existential potential,

existential potential wrote:

the concept of "deconstruct", is something that you depend upon Dasein. Its the concept, or the "tool" of deconstruction, that you yourself advocate the use of, in order to "uncover" yourself". But that therefore means that you are still "entangled", as you would say, within this particular concept, and others, which you do not deconstruct, namely Heidegger's philosophy.

But what I thinks going to happen, is that my posts will just be interpreted by you as coming from someone who is "entangled in the definitions, concepts, and theories" of the world, and therefore you will just dismiss this outright. As if the concepts you are dependent on do not come from the world, or as if you are somehow totally severed from all conceptual understanding, which is absurd.

Dasein is simply playing the only language game in philosophy that he knows how to play: the Heideggerian language game. His understanding comes from the acquired language, and hence his 'concepts' stem from Heidegger's language (in particular, the language of the early Heidegger). In this way, he can really only understand individuals who 'speak' in such a game; to play the game with him would be a getting-through-to-youness. But this would, quintessentially, create a stagnant atmosphere, as he would ultimately be talking to himself.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

I also said;

dasein wrote:

However, be forewarned. Just because you have the tools doesn't mean that the rest of the people who are entangled in the definitions, concepts, and theories will have any idea of what you are talking about.

Its not my "thinking" that is being challenged.

This forum is not about philosophy at all, is it. This forum is a water cooler for primates who refuse to think. You and 'existential potential' are both cowards standing around the water cooler laying in wait to take 'shots' at the genuine effort of others. You have reduced the possibility of this forum to a shooting gallery. Since this is your modus operandi here I know that this 'skill' is used elsewhere in your life. Taking shots at people in your life is what you call relationship.

I have read quite a few posts from both of you and the common thread throughout is that neither one of you add anything to the conversations you have with others. Both of you both sit there at your keyboard and take shots at others with your current opinion and demand more explanation knowing that your only purpose is to find another opening so you can take a shot. Again, I say this is not the only place you display this behavior.

You are both cowards because the only thing you put at risk is your half-assed opinions and somebody else's theories or concepts you have memorized.

The source of all human upset is "unfulfilled expectations". I was wrong to expect anything more from the two of you.

2 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

I forgot to include you in my previous post directed at "existential potential" and "reasoning logic".

1 Reply

@Dasein,

Dasein wrote:

I forgot to include you in my previous post directed at "existential potential" and "reasoning logic".

I won't forget you buddy. ;-)

0 Replies

@Dasein,

"neither one of you add anything to the conversations you have with others"-Dasein.

That is of course just your opinion, but I know that its not entirely true of myself.

"You are both cowards because the only thing you put at risk is your half-assed opinions and somebody else's theories or concepts you have memorized"-Dasein

This coming from someone who's read Being and Time what...75 times? From someone who, in nearly every post I have read, barks on about the same general ideas, Heidegger's ideas, not your own original ideas and theories.

Wow, talk about projection!

1 Reply

@existential potential,

Now you're being an idiot. You already know that once you read something and make new distinctions for your 'self' it is no longer Heidegger's ideas, they are your thinking.

Just more evidence for my assertion that you have nothing to contribute other than imbecilic pot shots.

1 Reply

@Dasein,

Sorry for making you feel threatened. Crying or Very sad

1 Reply

@existential potential,

You don't have the ability to threaten me and I put you on ignore because I don't want to restrain my 'self' from being annoyed by you.

If I just take small bites of you from time to time, who knows, you might become palatable.

Thanks for the training. (Please - no "bite me" jokes)

0 Replies

@Dasein,

I just do not know what to say!

Do you think that I have given up on you and your point of views?

Do you think that I do not question and try to see if I can find value in them and make sense of them?

Have I said that you are completely wrong or that you are a coward?

Lets just say that I have been trying to make sense of them! Does this make me a coward because I do not understand you but yet I am trying?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Do you think that I have given up on you and your point of views?

Nobody has the ability to 'give up' on anybody else. You only have the ability to conclude your discovery process by coming to a conclusion. I am the only one who can 'give up' on me. You are the only one who can 'give up' on you. If anybody tries to convince you that they have 'given up' on you all they are saying is that they are trying to gain control over the situation through emotional manipulation. Don't take what I am saying as the gospel. Look into your own life and you will see that what I am pointing out is true.

The source of what you call 'giving up' is you. Confusion works the same way. Numerous people have tried to convince me, you, and others that what I'm saying is confusing. However, when I speak to other people in my life they tell me how clear my thinking is.

If some people are clear about what I am saying and others are confused it makes me wonder where confusion comes from.

When someone introduces something 'new' to you and you become 'confused', is it an event that randomly happens on its own or is it possible that you were already confused before the conversation began and the 'new' data made you question what you thought you already knew?

Confusion wouldn't happen if you didn't already have a presupposition that the new data was banging up against, right?

Your confusion is not connected to me. Your confusion is a 'red flag' which you are waving to tell your 'self' to pay attention. Confusion is 'you' telling 'you' that there's something in your thinking that is not true and you are asking you to get to the bottom of it. Confusion is your conscience calling 'you' back to 'Be'-ing who 'you' are by asking 'you' to re-think and resolve the conclusion that is causing you to wave the red flag.

Most of the conclusions you have come to are the result of outside forces (the 'world' and the 'they'). Confusion is your opportunity to take your life back.

Remember, nobody can 'give up' on you and nobody can confuse you. It's all you screwing with you.

1 Reply

what is the beggining of philosophy?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know