For me I thought Heidegger was the toughest piece to read
thus far. In class I learned the this was just a part of the way that Heidegger
spoke. Of course there is always that translation flaw that comes when you turn
German to English, but this piece was still different. Heidegger created his
own little language, or twist on language, in order to avoid clear distinction.
He refused to make distinction. What I also found interesting is that he really
didn’t care about the external world. This is because he wanted a total view. It
was interesting to me that he say the Nazi movement as something to be admired,
although he did not support genocide, it was the way that the Nazis expressed
their view of a perfect world. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that is the take I got
from his background information.
Now its deep though time!
When we die… Is it peaceful? Will it hurt? Will there be
another life on the other side? Will we end up in a heavenly paradise and look
over the world in which we came? No one really knows, nor will we ever know.
For Heidegger, being in the world comes to an end in death,
as reference to Da-sein. Da-sein is
life, the actual state of being in life. For the authentic Da-sein this is
denied, because death is not something a Da-sein can experience.
“Death does not reveal itself as a loss, but as a loss
experienced by those remaining behind.” (pg. 140)
Heidegger even goes further to saying just how death can be
formulated. And it is in these three things:
- 1. As long as Da-sein is, not-yet belongs to it, which it will be--- what is constantly outstanding.
- 2. The coming-to-its-end of what is not-yet-at-an-end (in which what is outstanding is liquidated with regard to its being) has the character of no-longer-being-there.
- 3. Coming-to-an-end implies a mode of being in which the actual Da-sein absolutely cannot be represented by someone else. (pg. 141).
For death is something familiar to us. In this world it
occurs at every given moment. People die and others are born and that’s just
the way things are.
The first group asked us to write down a question and
reflect towards it. (if I can remember it properly)
“How would you feel if death were to come at this very
moment?”
My response was along these lines:
If death were to come at this very moment I would welcome it
with open arms, not for the fact that I no longer want to be a part of this
world, but for the fact that if it was really going to happen, it is clearly inevitable.
I cannot escape death, as there will be a day where I will have to face it and
either accept it or not accept it. The point is, regardless if you accept it or
not, your going to die if it is really is happening. Although there are a
million things that I would still like to do in my life, and that I am still
young, I have no grudge against death itself. For death is something
meaningful. Because if you think about it, we only have meaning in life because
of the short time that we have in this physical being. If we were to live for
eternity, I would lose purpose in life I think. So why resist something that we
all know if going to happen, just accept it and in that moment appreciate the
life that you had before.
Now! When the second group asked their big question, I was
not quite ready for that one…
For Heidegger the most fundamental of all questions is “Why
are there essents, why is there anything at all, rather than nothing?”
But “What is my biggest question?”
It is: “Will I ever have to courage to be the person that I truly
want to be?”
After the day is set and done and after I have thought over
my day and everything going on in my life, it is this question that presents
itself to me more often than I care to give it credit for.
There is this ideal person that I truly want to be, but for
some reason, I just cannot come to terms with it. It is as if I am too scared
to take that leap forward and become the person that I should and want to be. I
am almost certain that this question will continue to haunt me for quite
sometimes, and maybe, just maybe, I will get the benefit of having it answered
one day.
Hey Aubrey, I apologize in advance if my review seems a bit unorganized. I’ll be going through and reviewing sections on which I have an opinion on, in order to limit the amount of uselessness--much like this and the past sentence.
ReplyDeleteThis is less of review on your thoughts, but rather on Heidegger’s view. How can one support the Natzi idea of a ‘perfect world’(in Heidegger’s sense of the phase), yet be totally and completely against mass genocide? Correct me if I’m wrong, but a perfect world, could imply being inhabited by perfect people. So, in order to obtain a population with perfect people, in a rather quick fashion (lol), wouldn’t it follow that one who seeks to obtain this world, should find a way to get ‘rid of’ the imperfection? Again, rather quickly. Granted, arguments that have conclusions that follow from the premises, aren’t always necessarily good arguments. Oh well, that’s somewhat beside point.
I tend to go back and forth on what Heidegger thinks of death. My idea is that da-sein the state of just ‘being’, and it is some sort of abstract set. A set being group of elements(which can be sets as well). I like to think that this set, da-sein, contains elements like life and death. So, when Heidegger says that one’s da-sein is incomplete without the knowledge of one’s death, that makes sense. Death must be an element of all da-sein, and ignorance towards it makes our state of being, or rather awareness, incomplete. However, awareness of death does not imply we know what death is like. The sets of containing the experiences life and death, must be completely disjoint from one another. I would like to infer set containing the experiences of death, is in fact, the empty set. But, by set theory, the empty set takes on many set properties that different sets can have, because the proof of showing the empty set holds these qualities becomes trivially true. But in the same sense one who hasn’t, for example (a crude example), tasted shit can’t say what tasting shit feels like. Much like death, we can’t experience it while being alive. We can have ‘near death’ experiences and use some sort of inductive inference to say what death is like. However, going back to my shitty example (I hope you laughed at that, because I sure did), we also use some sort of inductive inference to say what what tasting shit is like. We infer that things that smell bad, usually taste bad. We experience shitty smells, which are unpleasant, so conclude that tasting shitty things is also unpleasant. But can we truly make these assumptions (about eating shit, and about being dead)? Or should we all eat shit, or kill ourselves, just to make sure? I don’t know.
(Sorry about my crude review, I had fun though)
Hey Aubrey, the question that you responded with to the second group seems to be the general question that haunts many young adults today. For me personally, I don’t have anything in particular figured out concerning my future life as a consequence of my lifestyle and personality, I’ve never been one to reach out towards the stars to obtain ambitions and things of that sort. Though for me, it’s not necessarily obtaining courage or the lack of courage that has held me back, though it sort of relates to laziness and unambitious qualities, but otherwise, I’m quite afraid of what the future may hold due its uncertainty at this time. Comparison to other people has never been quite subjective but in terms of progressing in life? If I were to compare myself with my fellow friends, I would say I’m quite unprepared and walking down towards a path of darkness.
ReplyDeleteThere have been times when I’ve jokingly thought to look towards religion to see what it would offer in terms of this confusion, but as a rationalist, it just doesn’t look plausible. But then again I’ve told myself if a sign or premonition were to appear, and it seems plausible enough to be passionate about, I might as well take that leap. Unfortunately during the class discussion, the questions prompted by others were mostly of the philosophical nature in the sense that there were no answers, but more questions and confusion. It seems appropriate that the metaphysical question of philosophy being more complex and complicated rather than making things easier. Wishing and hoping just isn’t the best way to go about it as it should be up to the individual to take their chances and just going forward, but for now, wishing and hoping seems to be a decent coping mechanism.
Aubrey,
ReplyDeleteIt's weird that thinking about such a dark topic can bring a lot of light into one's life. I've started thinking about death in a positive way. Like you mentioned, accepting that you're going to die encourages you to live a fuller life. And responding to death with an "oh well" attitude kind of makes other aspects of life less scary and threatening. I'm always happy to encounter someone else who feels like this towards death - and I'm sure our class is full of them. My friend always expresses shock when we talk about this and I tell him I could die now and be okay with it.
Hopefully you're able to use that train of thought to help with your Biggest Question. You've got one life to live (as far as we know), so why live it as someone else. Luckily for you, you've identified the question. I'm sure there are a ton of people that feel 'off' for some reason but can't figure out why, or maybe don't realize that there is a why. And maybe looking at the bigger picture in life will help you reach your true self. Because when you look at it, in the end, there's no reason not to. Don't think of it as becoming that person who you truly are, but letting go of who you're not. Good luck in your journey!