Submitted by thelivingphilosophy t3_yd3q1b in philosophy
“The question of Being has been utterly neglected since the work of Aristotle.
After millennia of neglect, Martin Heidegger made it his life’s work to ask just this question. He called it the “Seinsfrage” — the question of Being — and his work in this field has earned him the reputation among professional philosophers as one of the most profound thinkers of the 20th century.”
So…I may not be a philosopher, and I’m definitely a materialist / objectivist / whatever… but that first sentence rings of hyperbole. The question of being utterly neglected for over a thousand years?
I know nothing in the subject, can anyone back that claim up?
And as a follow up, I want to see if I understand his two points.
Seinsfrage, the question of being… I think he would reject any answer to that question that was simple enough to be called complete. “What is a door”? A door is more than a description and a purpose. It’s an object and an idea, difficult to define. A door is a door because we see it as a door. It’s defined by its relationship to how it is seen and used.
People are the same. We are an intricate web of relationships, physical identities and interactions, ideas and conceptions. That’s what I would call his Seinsfrage, an attempt to wrestle with that question and try to get to the bottom of it, and to encompass the whole of the being rather than isolate any one or two parts of it that are easier to grab onto.
As for technological vs poetic…that seems straightforward enough. Technological is a utilitarian view of the world, things are defined by how useful they are. But like, yeah, obviously that’s wrong. I’m tempted to accuse him of setting up the opposing side as a straw man. Ask anyone who loves their cat, or child, or car — these things have a significance beyond their usefulness. To argue that people think otherwise is absurd.
But sure, if we accept the premise that people have this technological view of the world, where things are defined by their purpose and usefulness, then obviously there is something missing. Such a perspective on life would be immensely joyless. Such a view of the world would struggle to answer the age old questions “Why are we here? What is the point of it all?” Such a view of the world would have no place for telling jokes with your friends, for loving another person, or for anything that couldn’t be described as useful. Many good things, many joys in life, would be lost in such a technological world view.
Is that supposed to be groundbreaking?
Idk. Y’all think I got him right? Did I miss his point?
> Idk. Y’all think I got him right? Did I miss his point?
i like how you ended this :)
> Ask anyone who loves their cat, or child, or car — these things have a significance beyond their usefulness. To argue that people think otherwise is absurd.
but look how we often relate to ourselves: as a resource to be exploited. we try to be successful and such. how do we relate to our free time? often as a resource to be exploited, maximized, etc.
> Such a view of the world would struggle to answer the age old questions “Why are we here? What is the point of it all?”
many young people do struggle with this. H's point, I think, is that out from under the spell of the technological age, that would not necessarily be the norm.
> Such a view of the world would have no place for telling jokes with your friends, for loving another person
that's a leap. jokes in themselves don't necessarily make life worth living. and look at how we often regard our romantic partners: with an eye on the efficiency and duration of harmony achieved. divorce is not celebrated in our culture because of this "technological" bent toward efficiency and productivity and exploitation of resources (the resources here being "love in one's heart" and "time spent on earth"). i think H's point is that it definitely could be, but it would be a radical shift.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments