Brett, a long-time Heidegger scholar will lead us in a discussion of the impact of the philosopher, Martin Heidegger.

Dryfuse"s Heidegger.

The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self

Ok so here is an approach to the topic. First, the history of philosophy. This gives context for all of the important turns of Heidegger's philosophy. You can get this from Richard Rorty's Philosophy and Social Hope, the introduction. IF you want you can skim the sections mentioning Heidegger from the index.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/299470425/Richard-Rorty-Philosophy-and-Social-Hope-Penguin-Non-Classics-2000

Then, if you want the stuff Marcuse has to say about the Heidegger's concept of a self as it is related to a world political. He saw common ground between Marx and Heidegger regarding this problem. Marcuse read the oppressive structure of advanced industrial society through three lenses, the Marxian lenses of alienation, The Lukácsian lenses of reification, and the Heideggerian lenses of inauthenticity.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marcuse/#PheMar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(Marxism)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticity_(philosophy)

This gives us a nice frame for comprehending both how big a turn Heidegger is making and then questioning the usefulness of his observations. This is what good philosophers do.

As far as covering Dasein. This begins with Kerikegard's definition of the self. "The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self." This is important as it's at the center of his whole project, to defeat the subject object distinction. You would also find much about this in the Rorty introductory text provided below.

The subject object stuff is Heidegger's working out the equipmentality of equipment. This is some amalgam of our having been socialized into shared practices and goals and that this logic of skills, practical wisdom, interpenetrates as a mode of being the world in which we make meaningful our lives. For Heidegger, we are meaning machines. Now get the three modes of being by maybe watching the video I made.

>>>>>>>>ill get you the rest soon i'm marking out parts of the Dreyfus lecture and will use my notes to get you the important stuff from the rest of being and time.

OK......

Dasine:::::: The background on the basis of which all modes of being are understood. These modes of being we could conceptualize as a register from pre-conceptual skillful coping, to skillful thinking.

Begin listening to track 3 at 17:44 seconds. Here you get the explanation of what fundamental ontology is. This is the argument, explanation of how we have an embodied awareness that is pre-conceptual that is ordering our understandings from moment to moment. And, that this is the logic of the surroundings brought to bear on our senses. The, for opening for cooling down, for ... and so on. It is the way in which stings show up for us as mattering. This is different than how we tend to think of understanding as some kind of thinking. Or even how we conceptualize what it is to be conscious. Its more a body thing than a mind thing. Dreyfus calls this out as : the myth of the mental" @ t3 50:10

Then it picks up again at track 3 44:49 where he explains my paragraph above.

Yet only by there being something present at hand, only by there being a logic of the surroundings brought to bear on our senses. Some content out of which we take a stand and experience what shows up to us as mattering. Can there be a ready to hand way of being of equipment. There must be a causal structure out from which some intelligibility is born.

This is the central point of being and time. That the self world distinction is the myth of the mental. That intelligibility is a product of holism. That the world is the experiencing of the showing up for us as mattering of a hammer as an all at once intelligibility of the inter-defined lexicon of tables and nails and windows and doors and rooms and so on. >>>>>And<<<<< That the way of being of equipment The structure of the story which is ever-present. IS there for us as the result of our taking a stand on our being. We,,,,,,,, and here's the story,,,,, the structure. Use a hammer "in order to" hammer in a nail, "toward" making it faster, "toward" making a frame, "toward" making a house, "for the sake of" providing shelter, "ultimately for the sake of" my being a homemaker, or father.....

Listen to the most important challenge of the entire western tradition since Plato beginning at Track 5, 00:50 to 1:09 and at 1:12 he explains the Kierkergaardian self which Heidegger is uncovering. A relation which relates itself to its own self. Each significant moment we are going through this story sequence, a relation of relating itself to its own self. Of taking a stand on our being.

Enough for now 2/19/9:30pm

Terms

Being: t1 at 44.01

Traditional understanding of being which goes all the way back to Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and the pre-socratics. Rather than telling you about some necessary universal conditions like Kant Heidegger tells us that there are three distinct ways he’s aware of that, together, account for the register of what we encounter. Three ahistorical cross cultural modes of being. 1) The way of being of equipment, The ready to hand 2) Objects, or, substances that we note the properties

of.The present to hand. And 3) Human Beings, Dasine, that whatever it is about human beings that makes them make their being an issue for them. This is the the Kierkergaardian self stuff again. A relation which relates itself to its own self.

This bring us to the phenomena….

We have always a ready to hand relationship in the world. There is always the phenomena for us of the affordance logic provided for us by our embodiment and embodiment’s predisposition. First among these, our temporality, or lived time. This reminds me of the Pascal quote that mankind is stretched on the contradiction of being possible and necessary, temporal and eternal, finite and infinite. This basic feature of existence for us, temporality, earlier and later, succession Dreyfus calls it. Plus the predisposition we have as human beings to take a stand on our being yields the phenomena story which shows up for us in significant events. The story is explained in spatiality II nicely. We with our Dasine, our meaningful dealing with things.

Spatiality II 16:10 Then he picks up again and explains the phenomena of the discovering ready to hand relations. @ 18:10 In skillful coping we have some moment in which something is not working as wall as it should be at which point it becomes conspicuous by there being some deficiency. Once you have this deficiency and conspicuousness you get the story that comes along with the un-ready to hand. This story is about our world of circumspective concern. Use a hammer "in order to" hammer in a nail, "toward" making it faster, "toward" making a frame, "toward" making a house, "for the sake of" providing shelter, "ultimately for the sake of" my being a homemaker, or father.....

He then explains de-worlding as the transition to present at hand. When a hammer looses all of its in-order to’s, and for the sake of’s when as we confront it as if we had never understood a hammer before and consider it as its properties.

Have to stop now...@/—... Ok back again MOn@1:50 I think we could go back to the center of the whole situation and then get to question of what the difference is, implications are for other disciplines and much more if Heidegger is right about something a fundamental as the subject object problem. OK?....

So in The One I, Dreyfus explains the history of philosophy stuff. He talks about how the practice of philosophy having become the problem business, invent a problem and then try to resolve it. @ 3:00 he begins. He explains Heidegger sees the turning of everything into problems as the resurrection of metaphysics. Dreyfus then supports this view, saying that is what has been going on the whole time I have been around. Flipping back and forth from epistemology to metaphysics. Then we get Heidegger on what to do to avoid this. Avoid the schema, he tells us. Subjects and objects, consciousness and being, being is the object of consciousness, authentic being is nature, what science tells us, consciousness is an "I think", consciousness is an ego, and ego pole, a center of acts. Consciousness has standing against it beings, objects, natural things, things of value, goods... The relationship between subject and object needs to be explained. IT is a problem, for epistemology. The dominance of this "problem" of how your subjects get to know the external world or other subjects. This schema in so doing ensures a foothold in life for various disciplines, psychology, philosophy and others, ninety percent of the literature is preoccupied with ensuring that these problems do not disappear and are confounded in still more and ever new ways.

Other minds, the ontology of being with..

When we see something we always see it as anyone could see it, the idea that it is somehow in our private experience is just not apt description. There is a fundamental ontological characteristic that what we encounter we encounter as in a public world and for everybody. Now add to that his argument that man is the kind of being which, has to, take a stand on its being, and.........that we have to do that by using the public world. The important point here is that Dasine is not something in us. That the Dasine in us isn't arms and legs that move (embodiment) isn't a perceiver with inner experiences.

Now, here it is,,,,,,, Break from subject object ontology by way of. The following description or explanation. THis is my explanation.

We have something truly basic, time, what he calls succession, before and after. That we have before and after, that we are experiencing it, we are experiencing something structuring the universe itself. In order to function at all we must be competent to the task of having a logic at all. Succession gives us a future state of affairs, and, as we are doing things we are doing them for a reason, the reason being some future state of affairs. This is where we get the story from. Use a hammer "in order to" hammer in a nail, "toward" making it faster, "toward" making a frame, "toward" making a house, "for the sake of" providing shelter, "ultimately for the sake of" my being a homemaker, or father.....

That we go through this in such a way so as to care for a future in both the performative sense, of not dropping the hammer on our toe, but also in the sense of being a home maker or father. We cant really escape doing so. There isn't really a subject getting to know objects so much as there is the givenness of the problem of existence as a time based medium. Not as an experiencing subject but as, something like, a function of the results for a thing that is a relation struggling to relate itself to it's own self. And that the important part about what makes this different from us being an experiencing subject is that we are a functional relation. Not a thing with inner representations and experiences, but a thing made functional by our being a node in a vast framework of relations of practices goals of >>> by a world of circumspective concern. Man is not synthesis of soul and body it is existence. Synthesis is not enough, we are not just a stream of comportment. This requires a hammer, hammer's to heavy and so on. We are this comportment lodged in succession and the world of circumspective concern that comes with it. The one I, 20:00,,, 20:23>!!!!

Again this is me talking... I think it gets really interesting when you look at this and at Donald Davidson stuff on truth claims. Things being true so far as we know because they fit with what we think we know about everything else we know. Mind blown yet?

Have to stop again. Mon 4:55 Back now Wed 10AM (っ◕‿◕)っ

Now some history of philosophy stuff.

The subject / object problem

Subject / Object

Self / World

Reality / Appearance

Absolute / Relative

Found / Made

Plato —————————> Descarte, Hegel, Kant, Searl

Then the split

Darwin ————————> Heidegger, Sarte, Gadammer, Derrida, & Focualt, Dreyfus

And// WIlliam James, Emerson, John Dewey, Richard Rorty, William Quine, Donald Davidson

The shift in the field of philosophy turns on skeptical attitudes toward traditional vocabularies. And as a result agreement with Thomas Khun that Philosophy, like Science, like politics, is problem solving. The new vocabulary is time based. Beginning in Charles Sander Pierce. Beliefs are habits of acting.

Philosophy And Social Hope xxiv

“On this definition, to ascribe a belief to someone is simply to say that he or she will tend to behave as I behave when I am willing affirm the truth of a certain sentence. Wc ascribe beliefs to things which use, or can be imagined to use, sentences, but not to rocks and plants. This is not because the former have a special organ or capacity - consciousness -which the latter lack, but simply because the habits of action of rocks and plants are sufficiently familiar and simple that their behavior can be predicted without ascribing sentential attitudes to them.

On this view, when we utter such sentences as 'I am hungry' we are not making external what was previously internal, but are simply helping those around to us to predict our future actions. Such sentences are not used to report events going on within the Cartesian Theatre which is a person's consciousness. They are simply tools for coordinating our behavior with those of others. This is not to say that one can 'reduce' mental states such as beliefs and desires to physiological or behavioral states. It is merely to say that there is no point in asking whether a belief represents reality, either mental reality or physical reality, accurately. That is, for pragmatists, not only a bad question, but the root of much wasted philosophical energy. “The right question would be for what purposes would it be useful to hold such a belief.

ANSWER: useful for solving some problem

————————> Politics

Health

Culture

<<Norms>>

Politics

Absolute (Conservative)

(Justification) Arguments grounded in supernatural forces.

Talk about good and evil.

(Thomas Aquinas)

Relative (Liberal)

Arguments grounded in diminishing suffering and increasing human equality.

Talk about alternative goods.

(Richard Kraut, What is Good and Why)

____________________________________________________________________

Absolute (Conservative)

Talk about, Moral Principals VS Well Being

Moral Principals defended by arguments about Rationality.

Talk about, the relative advantages of different moralities.

Relative (Liberal)

Talk about, Well Being

Equal chance at happiness and concrete advantages of practices and <<NORMS>> over other societies.

Politics becomes a war over wether what is the nature of the problem. The war between those who insist our goal must be to do the morality business better, and those who see this as no different than the struggle for existence business.

The important reason for this war over vocabularies in which we work out the justification for our actions is that talk about firm moral principals is the danger of what one sees as a firm moral

principal in concrete terms is a form of prejudice cutting against the maxim of "equal chance at happiness". This is because talk relying in justification from anything other than relative advantage, will be as inconclusive as discussion of the relative superiority of a beloved book or person over another book or person.

This gets us back around to Heidegger.

In place of some trans cultural quasi-divine faculty called reason, Heidegger gives us three ahistorical cross cultural modes of being. 1) The way of being of equipment, The ready to hand 2) Objects, or, substances that we note the properties of the present to hand. And 3) Human Beings, Dasine, that whatever it is about human beings that makes them make their being an issue for them.

The morality business is conceived of differently. In order to take a stand on your being. In order to be a person of practical wisdom. You will have to do the culture better. To do the culture better you will already be on your way into the doing the morality business. The customs and institutions are prior to and what commands our moral allegiance. One hardly has a choice.

And back to Pragmatism again.

Your moral allegiance may take up talk about the various concrete advantages of the Catholic Church, or voting against cap and trade. But they will not get justification from claims about being more rational or more human. They will be made from claims about human flourishing. We can see this in Charles Sanders Peirce’s definition of a belief as a habit of action. On this view a belief is as far as we know true, is to day that no other alternative belief is, as far as we know a better habit of acting. Another way of making this same point is to say that it makes no sense to pursue truth for its own sake. That the purpose of enquiry is to achieve agreement among human beings about what to do, to bring about consensus on the ends to be achieved and the mean stop be used to achieve them. Enquiry not aimed at coordinating behavior is not enquiry bout something else, wordplay or entertainment.

And now on to Develpomentalism (What is good and why, Richard Kraut)

Developmentalism, is talk about calculating for the best habit of acting. What is it for something to be good for someone, and which things are good in this way.

The vocabulary this is worked out is, “when it is good for you that (P) that is because the occurrence of (P) is supportive of flourishing.

And now back to Aristotle. In this case Aristotle on Happiness. (here’s Director Norman Lear to explain it). Happiness is the exercise of vital faculties along lines of excellence in a life that affords them scope. This coincidentally is the content of the message of Hillary Clinton’s current campaign ad.

Developmentalism

(From Prolegomenom to Flourishing 143)

It is reasonable to ask how well developmentalism does on that score.The answer is that we are filled with concrete, developmental ideasabout what is good or bad for people—developmental in that what liesbehind these ideas is the assumption that it is good for us to put intoaction the psychological and physical skills we began to acquire aschildren. What kind of jobs do we think of as bad jobs, that is, forthe person who does them? They are mindless, repetitive, emotionallystilling, socially isolating, physically debilitating tasks, devoid of any-thing that can he enjoyed. But with a moment's thought we can also givea long list of jobs that have at least something to offer to a worker in there very doing of them—if that worker is temperamentally suited to andqualified to perform them and she therefore enjoys her work. Thepowers of thought and feeling whose origin can be traced back to child-hood education can be put into play by an extremely large number of so-cial positions. and they are often sought partly for this reason and notonly for the good they do for others. It is good for a doctor (and not onlyher patients) that she he successful in healing: good for a poet (andnot only her readers) to write good poetry; good for an acne» (and notonly her audience) to inhabit convincing roles; good for a cook (andnot only the resultant-going public) to make delicious meals. We canthink of countless cases of this sort, and all of them depend on our confidence that the exemplary performance of complex tasks that make useof our cognitive. affective. and social powers is- good for the person whoachieves that goal.

But it is not only well-defined social roles that have this duality of giving room to one's own good as well as that of others. For example. beingat loving person. when this is not mere sentiment but is suffused with social intelligence, is an activity that brings into play a complex set of affective and cognitive powers that are directed at the well-being of others.but whose very exercise constitutes a good for the person who possessesthem. When, for example, we occupy the role of a friend and performthat role well, we enjoy giving the people we like the help, comfort, andamusement they need. Of course, we think directly about their good anddo not me them as mere instruments for our own self-improvement ormaterial advantage. But we like doing things for them—not to do sowould constitute a grave defect as a friend. And one reason we find thisso enjoyable Is that being a good friend is in some respects like having agood job, it offers abundant opportunities to he a comforter, a helper, acompanion, and when we do these things, we put into play the sophisticated psychological skills that gradually took shape as we emerged fromchildhood. For similar reasons. someone who has his heart on becoming aparent, it is for his own good that he wants to raise a family, not as a wayto have helpers in his old age, but because he thinks he will be a good father and he wants to develop and exercise the caring skills called forthby the love of children. Another example: a single person may want tofind someone to marry in part because he thinks that the complex affective and interactive skills needed by a good marriage panner are ones that he will enjoy acquiring and exercising.

Out for something, anything...WED@4:15

And now back into the Heidegger.

The norms, Heidegger goes on about in such a way, that they effectively take the place of what Roprty describes as the “Quasi-Devine faculty reason of the tradition in philosophy since Plato. The norms tell us what to do and the right way to do things and if they didn’t we wouldn’t know what to do. And, because of this being the case we have an organized world.

Norms, the positive an negative…

Positive: He, Dryfus, gives an example, my mother would always put the shades down in the front windows of our ranch house, because, what would the neighbors think if they could see that we didn't get around to making the bed that a day.

There is a norm and you better conform to stand there are these neighbors watching to make sure that you conform to it. The norm in this way is, sly, it governs everything you do and it does so inconspicuously while making what you do sharedly intelligible.

The Negative: Averageness —the averageness in which the norm prescribes what can and cannot be ventured keep watch over everything exceptional and trusts itself to the fore. Everything exceptional, anything outstanding, gets pushed back to doing the norm, the what is the normal thing. Every kind of priority gets noisily suppressed. Everything primordial, instinctive, primitive, basic, primal, primeval, intuitive, inborn, innate, inherent, visceral gets glossed over as something that has been long known. Everything gained by a struggle becomes just something to be manipulated.

The tendency toward norms an averageness when just natural and necessary has this bad consequence. This car of averageness reveals this essential tendency “leveling down”. There’s the norms in distanciality, the norms care of averageness, which ought to be neutral, and leveling down, which is bad. AS ways of being for the one they constitute what we know as “publicness”. the public is always covering up that’s really interesting, and important. This banality — standard way of doing things, this publicness is always co-opting or coercing or repressing all the derivations, many of which are crazy but some of which are very important original stuff.

For this reason the skill managing this tendency toward norms and averageness, is the skill involved in taking a stand on your being. And, i am going to add, a parallel Dewey sees when he writes “Aims, ideal do not exist simply in mind they exist in character in personality and action, one might call the role of artists, intellectual enquirers, and citizens who are neighbors, to show that purpose exists in an operative way.

On this view the good person and good citizen does what they can to be in many ways excellent demonstrating a mastery of the culture. This is going back to Aristotle, to the phrónimos, the person of practical wisdom. The man of practical wisdom does his “in this particular situation’s” “in his particular way”. Does the uniquely appropriate thing at the uniquely appropriate time in the uniquely appropriate way. This allows for a seeing and doing and thereby making sharedly intelligible to others what is more appropriate. This becomes the measure of progress.

The argument becomes, the benefits of the compounding good of ——

Fighting for the equal chance at happiness in our exercising the carom skills called for by the love of children. Or, the acquiring and expressing the affective and interactive skills needed by a

good marriage partner. And that in carrying out these duties an privileges that you do them in your own uniquely better way by being you being excellent at being a father or, or being excellent as a husband or spouse, or teacher or provider.

You can find this all in Dreyfus’s track, “The One II, @ 18:00 and again at 28:00 —33:00

Heidegger has this Aristotelian talk where happiness is the actively phrónimos person. And that the actively phrónimos person, is the good citizen and neighbor in and through his making sharedly intelligible to others what is more appropriate.

Here is the Rorty Text

https://www.scribd.com/doc/299470425/Richard-Rorty-Philosophy-and-Social-Hope-Penguin-Non-Classics-2000

Here are the files in the correct order & for download. I listen to them in the car.

https://archive.org/details/Philosophy_185_Fall_2007_UC_Berkeley

Here is an overview, ummm kind of I did, I know its annoying the music, so ... Ill post real readings, articles probably asap. Now that i have come back to this I see it has some problems and also it deals with more of the pragmatists, so less good for explaining Heidegger.

https://vimeo.com/8286688

Here is a great resource for those who don't already read here.

http://plato.stanford.edu/search/search?query=Dasein

The criticism of Heidegger here by Marcuse is good for various reasons.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marcuse/