@Dasein,
Dasein wrote:
I don't trust Heidegger. I really don't “trust” any philosopher if “trusting” means to take his conclusions at face value as true.
Then tell me: who do you trust? Just yourself? Beware: you'll be disappointed...
Dasein wrote:'Conclusions' are at the end of thinking. Thinking is where the value is. The value has never been in the conclusions. What I'm saying is that I'm responsible for the value in my my own thinking. I think through for my 'self' what Heidegger or other philosophers are saying until I reach the 'value'. In some cases I have read Socrates, Plato, Kant, Descartes, Aquinas, etc. and found great concepts and theories, but no 'value'. 'Value' for me is when I experience having acquired more freedom to 'be' my authentic 'self'.
Now just ask yourself: isn't this
your conclusion? And being your conclusion, isn't it the "end of your thinking"?
Dasein wrote:When I read Heidegger and I am thinking about what he is saying I follow a couple of criteria.
1) If what he is saying causes me to be confused, I know that what I am thinking about is challenging a conclusion or misconception that I have.
And how do you know that what Heidegger is saying is not simply wrong? Or he just can't be wrong?
Dasein wrote:Over time I have come realize that my confusion is directly related to my misconceptions.
We have an agreement.
Dasein wrote:If that happens, I go back to where I started to become confused and re-read it. The vast majority of the time this simple step resolves the confusion. I have found that sometimes my confusion happens because while I'm reading I start to think of something not connected to what I'm reading so, again, I go back and re-read.
What you are describing is just the experience of reading Heidegger enough to understand what he's saying. This is just the beginning: there is a long way from that to knowing if what he's saying is true. Or do you accept everything you manage to understand?
Dasein wrote:2) If after reading the selection something hasn't fallen into place and given me the experience of ka-chunk, I know from my own experience of my 'self' that I need to set the selection I'm reading aside and re-read it tomorrow. Normally when I do that I get the ka-chunk experience and something opens up for me. (I actually think that something gets resolved and I never have to address it again, freedom).
The only freedom I see there is that from thinking.
Dasein wrote:So, if what I'm reading creates confusion and doesn't resolve the confusion, it has no value to me.
I don't think you realize how confused you are.
Dasein wrote:When I began reading “Being and Time” in 1995 I was pretty much oblivious to the process I was going through. I would get to the end of the 389 pages and just start over. Sometimes I would experience a “break-open” and reread the book just to find out what just happened. I never found out what happened because what happened occurred at the level of 'Be'-ing and knowing and not at the level that you and I call the world. I still am not able to 'put my finger on' what happens. I just keep reading because I know something will happen. This is what I call 'trusting your thinking'.
This is trusting Heidegger, not your thinking: you are leaving to him the job of thinking, from which you then become "free." You treat his writings as religious people treat the Bible (why Heidegger instead of Jesus?) This is the same thing the German people did with Hitler: "just follow the guy, and let him do all the thinking - or perhaps that Goebbels guy."
So Hitler, the teacher of Heidegger, could manage to "freely" put all Jewish people within quotes as a remotely far-away "they."
Dasein wrote:Nobody said anything about trusting me. You should trust your thinking. All I'm saying is that you should make sure that the thinking you're doing comes from your 'self' and not from somebody else's conclusions.
I regret your ignoring that any conversation involves a certain level of trust, without which there is no possible communication. And I regret even more that you confuse trust with intellectual agreement.
The attitude of Heidegger of putting others withing quotes as "the 'they'" endangers the very trust needed by any conversation and isolates him and his followers in their "selves," lonely congratulating themselves for nothing.
Dasein wrote:Damn! That was a great question.
What question? I didn't see you making yourself any question.
