Well I must say that this week’s readings were a pain in the
ass to follow. I think that the author of the book could have done a better job
of translating the text by taking out all the redundant sentences. But I guess
if he had done that the reading would have been too straight to the point for
its audience, and too short to sell. Sorry to sound so negative but that
reading really gave me a headache. I am very glad that I attended class Monday
because the two groups that presented did a great job of helping me understand
the text. To be honest I think they were the best thus far. I felt bad for the
guy from group one who did the majority of his groups presentation it seemed
that everyone was gaining up on him. Given the circumstances of the class I
think that the way he used “Being” to mean Da-seign was ok; however others
disagreed. My group did a presentation on Dostoevsky, and he spoke about being
irrational to achieve free will. I think that by changing Da-seign to “Being”
was irrational which made me appreciate it even more. I felt like it enhanced
the conversation and we were no longer bound by the text.
One of the key topics discussed was in reference to
existence. What is the problem with this question? What I got out of it was
that by simply being, we exist. But to question what life is, is to question
our life as well. Therefore if we question life then we clearly do not
understand it. This brings me to my next point of fundamental ontology.
Fundamental Ontology is the understanding of our existence before being able to
question other things. I see flaw with this because if we question our own
existence then how can we possibly understand. What I got out of the text is
that we can never really understand what something is, because someone can
always see it as different. Take the coke bottle for example. We see the bottle
as a container, but others so it as a hard substance. Who is right in the
matter we believe it to be what we think and they have their belief, therefore
who is to say its true meaning.
The second reading was a little bit easier to follow. I’m not
certain if it’s because the use of language in it or I just got used to his style.
Either way I liked this piece more. I especially liked the topic of thinking. There
are three forms of thinking meditative, thoughtlessness, and calculative
thinking. Heidegger attacks thoughtlessness the most saying that it is the most
used thought process both then and today. It seems as if meditative is the best
because it is the process of reflecting on our lives. I personally like the
thoughtless thinking. I like to think that I live in the now. I don’t think back
on my life because I am capable of making it better in the present. I think
that old age is the time for meditative thinking. I don’t see the point of
making a few memories and reflecting on them I would much rather create more
and more memories and think back on them later. When I am old I will be a
meditative thinker and if I can’t reflect on my life the same way as I could
when I was younger with fewer memories then I will be happy, because that means
I truly lived life. We can’t truly define existence so why keep trying to; I
think it is better to just live life to the fullest.
I agree with you that this classes readings were a little more challenging than past readings. I would have loved for Solomon to have offered the material in a more straight to the point manner because I had to read those sections four or five times to grasp what was going on. And I agree with you that these groups did a phenomenal job with their presentations and in incorporating the classes responses with the material.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say, “if we question our own existence then how can we possibly understand” are you saying how could we possibly understand the existence of other objects or of ourselves? I think that as creatures of higher intelligence we can have an abundance of knowledge of things but still know nothing at all. So, we can know what a hammer is but not know what makes up the hammer. But why is that an issue at all? With your coke bottle example, for instance, why can it only be a container or a hard surface? Why can’t it be both? Because it is both.. We are human beings; we are DNA and molecules and a ton of other stuff but we are also a consciousness and self.
I liked the reading on thinking as well, and I wish we would have been able to spend more time on it in class. However, you say that old age is the time for meditative thinking? Well, why can’t youth, adolescence and adulthood also be times of meditative thinking? That is how you grow as a person and learn from your mistakes, by analyzing the past. And just because you reflect on things you had done doesn’t restrain you from creating new and, maybe, equally as stupid memories... That too is how you can live life to the fullest, and become wiser from it!