In this first article here on E, I will take as base my class from earlier today. Considering Heidegger and his definition of the being, the ent and the existentialism, I will give some philosophic considerations. However, before I can do anything, I must give you all some clarifications about terms and those texts in specific.
First of anything, do not consider values of 'right' or 'wrong' on this text. Philosophy does not has those values, it is a matter of interpretation. It is a very personal thing indeed. Ironically this opens space for discussion with more efficiency than if we used 'right' or 'wrong'. Second, I am going to separate topics, so feel free to read whatever goes to your interests. Also, do not feel yourself obliged to read anything at once. This is not a quick-reading text nor to be read only once.
Another thing to clarify is the term 'attack'. In philosophy, attacking an idea or issue does not mean the same thing as we are used to. Actually, we could consider 'attacking' as 'analyzing'. So, when I say I am attacking an idea, this means I will talk about it. Most of the times it will be impartial. But, there is no such thing as impartial communication, but I will detail this fact in another article.
First, Heidegger's interest on his existential analytics is the man on his daily life. There is no reason to stop and think about why the man is there, what's the meaning of the being or anything like that. The important question is the 'way to be'. The human being is defined by the way he carries on his own existance.
But here there is a big issue, from Heidegger's point of view. During his life, the human beings do several choices on several states of mind. But none of then are actually responsible or even correct. There is only one way a man can be free: under complete anguish. There is no individualization but what becomes from distress. When you are in distress, you find yourself with no choices, no predefined ideas or conceptions, so you have to find yourself by being yourself, you have to find your real identity. Every choice made under distress is correct and reasonable, and defines the person. However, if the person heals him or herself from the distress, that person won't be safe from it.
Back to the issue about the being, those who read about any other authors probably know the common issue about the being and the ent. They all try to correlate both values somehow, but Heidegger disagrees. The being is completely different of the ent. This does not mean that there is no being on the ents, but there is no how to 'be' before the ent itself. This idea invalidates all the conception of cause and effect, of course, ignoring every other author and their logics.
As he develops this idea, Heidegger questions all the ways shown on philosophy about how to question things. During all Philosophy we see people trying to come up with questions, and then answers to those questions. Some authors even try to answer questions that were never made before.
Personally, I think that Heidegger fails to apply his conception of being and ent to the mankind itself, for he seems to create an exception on his own rule about the casual and how the human ent behave, applying a privileged way to be to ourselves, for in theory we make our own rules. However, he says that everything is bound to the time. For example, he claims that if a man kills himself, he won't actually die, because it wasn't his time and occasion to perish on that specific event. Then, why unbinding this from time itself?
His way to prove how powerless we are about some things, is how he defines art. When a man is an artist, and he tries to create art, if he controls the idea of the art and applies his own personality, it won't be art, it will be anything else, only an object. The real art occurs when the idea of the creation flows through your head and becomes the piece. The art itself isn't a thing, it is a happening, so to say.
This is another thing I find contradictory on Heidegger's logic. For him, art is abstract and the concept of cause and consequence does no exist. Then, why the real art is nothing but the product of an artistic idea that comes out of our control? Isn't that pure cause and effect? I invite you all to help me in the search of an answer.
Also, this idea of casual happening may be seen on Deleuze's writings, where he says that the signs can't be forced, and a person can't simply decide to have an idea on his mind.
This is just one part of my article about Heidegger. I will write more, but it will involve more of the being itself. Please, I would like some comments and feedbacks.
I recommend for this post reading the book Being and Time, by Martin Heidegger.
