Comments on: What does it mean to be human? http://philosophyandpsychology.com/?p=54 Musings from a Heideggerian Perspective Mon, 06 Sep 2010 08:06:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: jofr http://philosophyandpsychology.com/?p=54&cpage=1#comment-169 jofr Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:41:53 +0000 http://philosophyandpsychology.wordpress.com/?p=54#comment-169 To be human means in Ray Bradbury's words to be "Too Soon from the Cave, Too Far from the Stars..." It means to be a ghost in the machine. It means to be aware of the own mortality. And it means to write love songs that combine the deepest drives with the highest culture: Every night's a lonely night since you went away But you come back to haunt my memory I lie awake and think of you and how it used to be Oh my love don't give up on me. To be human means in Ray Bradbury’s words to be “Too Soon from the Cave, Too Far from the Stars…” It means to be a ghost in the machine. It means to be aware of the own mortality. And it means to write love songs that combine the deepest drives with the highest culture:

Every night’s a lonely night since you went away
But you come back to haunt my memory
I lie awake and think of you and how it used to be
Oh my love don’t give up on me.

]]> By: Minds and Brains » Being human: take two http://philosophyandpsychology.com/?p=54&cpage=1#comment-148 Minds and Brains » Being human: take two Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:36:05 +0000 http://philosophyandpsychology.wordpress.com/?p=54#comment-148 [...] an earlier post [now updated], I tried to get at a Heideggarian “definition” of the being of humans. I [...] [...] an earlier post [now updated], I tried to get at a Heideggarian “definition” of the being of humans. I [...]

]]> By: Update on the being of humans « Minds and Brains http://philosophyandpsychology.com/?p=54&cpage=1#comment-47 Update on the being of humans « Minds and Brains Mon, 25 May 2009 15:23:23 +0000 http://philosophyandpsychology.wordpress.com/?p=54#comment-47 [...] Update on the being of humans Link to the updated version of my most popular post of all time. [...] [...] Update on the being of humans Link to the updated version of my most popular post of all time. [...]

]]> By: Being human: take two « Minds and Brains http://philosophyandpsychology.com/?p=54&cpage=1#comment-45 Being human: take two « Minds and Brains Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:57:25 +0000 http://philosophyandpsychology.wordpress.com/?p=54#comment-45 [...] human: take two In an earlier post, I tried to get at a Heideggarian “definition” of the being of humans. I don’t [...] [...] human: take two In an earlier post, I tried to get at a Heideggarian “definition” of the being of humans. I don’t [...]

]]> By: Roman http://philosophyandpsychology.com/?p=54&cpage=1#comment-44 Roman Tue, 12 Feb 2008 04:50:10 +0000 http://philosophyandpsychology.wordpress.com/?p=54#comment-44 Hi Gary, sure, the ontological difference is wrapped up in what it means to be human. But in your post you said that "the ontological difference is the difference between the being of humans and beings in general." That can't be right, because of both of the quotes you've cited. First, from the post: "we call the distinction between being and beings, when it is carried out explicitly, the ontological difference." So it's the distinction between being (not the being of humans, but just being) and beings (i.e., entities, including human beings). Now, look at the quote you just gave: it says that the ontological difference is "founded on Dasein's existence." Right. Dasein's existence is the foundation of the difference between being and beings, for the simple reason that it is only through Dasein's comportment that this difference can appear. So this means that the ontological difference is definitely wrapped up in what it means to be human--if not for human beings, the difference wouldn't exist. I was just making the simple point that the being of human beings is not one of the terms in the difference. It is being in general, or being as such. If human beings did not exist, there would be no ontological difference, but this is only because human beings are the (only) beings through which the ontological difference becomes manifest. Hi Gary, sure, the ontological difference is wrapped up in what it means to be human. But in your post you said that “the ontological difference is the difference between the being of humans and beings in general.” That can’t be right, because of both of the quotes you’ve cited. First, from the post: “we call the distinction between being and beings, when it is carried out explicitly, the ontological difference.” So it’s the distinction between being (not the being of humans, but just being) and beings (i.e., entities, including human beings). Now, look at the quote you just gave: it says that the ontological difference is “founded on Dasein’s existence.” Right. Dasein’s existence is the foundation of the difference between being and beings, for the simple reason that it is only through Dasein’s comportment that this difference can appear.

So this means that the ontological difference is definitely wrapped up in what it means to be human–if not for human beings, the difference wouldn’t exist. I was just making the simple point that the being of human beings is not one of the terms in the difference. It is being in general, or being as such. If human beings did not exist, there would be no ontological difference, but this is only because human beings are the (only) beings through which the ontological difference becomes manifest.

]]> By: Gary Williams http://philosophyandpsychology.com/?p=54&cpage=1#comment-43 Gary Williams Tue, 12 Feb 2008 03:36:29 +0000 http://philosophyandpsychology.wordpress.com/?p=54#comment-43 Roman, I think the ontological difference is definitely wrapped up in what it means to be a human. In Basic Problems of Phen., Heidegger says: "This explicit accomplishment[the distinction] and the development of the ontological difference is therefore also, since it is founded on the Dasein's existence, not arbitrary and incidental but a basic comportment of the Dasein in which ontology, that is, philosophy, constitutes itself as a science." Roman, I think the ontological difference is definitely wrapped up in what it means to be a human. In Basic Problems of Phen., Heidegger says:

“This explicit accomplishment[the distinction] and the development of the ontological difference is therefore also, since it is founded on the Dasein’s existence, not arbitrary and incidental but a basic comportment of the Dasein in which ontology, that is, philosophy, constitutes itself as a science.”

]]> By: Roman http://philosophyandpsychology.com/?p=54&cpage=1#comment-42 Roman Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:12:38 +0000 http://philosophyandpsychology.wordpress.com/?p=54#comment-42 Nice post. Just a couple of comments: 1. I don't think anyone, Heidegger included, would say that he succeeded in working out the meaning of being. He planned to do this in the part of Being and Time that he never published. 2. The ontological difference is the difference between beings, and the being of beings (i.e., being as such), not the being of human beings. 3. The being of beings, roughly, is the meaningfulness that beings have. Beings are meaningful, for Heidegger, through their relations to us. These relations depend, in turn, on our activities. So in acting in the world, we necessarily contribute to the meaning that that beings have for us. So, the beings are there for us to interact with, but the being of beings (their meaning) appears to us in those interactions. Acting, then, involves an implicit awareness and constitution of the relation between beings and their being. Nice post. Just a couple of comments:

1. I don’t think anyone, Heidegger included, would say that he succeeded in working out the meaning of being. He planned to do this in the part of Being and Time that he never published.

2. The ontological difference is the difference between beings, and the being of beings (i.e., being as such), not the being of human beings.

3. The being of beings, roughly, is the meaningfulness that beings have. Beings are meaningful, for Heidegger, through their relations to us. These relations depend, in turn, on our activities. So in acting in the world, we necessarily contribute to the meaning that that beings have for us. So, the beings are there for us to interact with, but the being of beings (their meaning) appears to us in those interactions. Acting, then, involves an implicit awareness and constitution of the relation between beings and their being.

]]> By: Gary Williams http://philosophyandpsychology.com/?p=54&cpage=1#comment-41 Gary Williams Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:45:23 +0000 http://philosophyandpsychology.wordpress.com/?p=54#comment-41 You don't need to be "elevated" to be different. Does not having the capacity for language, self-reflection, and culture make us different from just about every animal known to man? Different doesn't mean better, but to deny that there is something special to humans is ludicrous. As far as we know humans are the only creatures that have an ontological stand on their being, because to some extent this requires language. You don’t need to be “elevated” to be different. Does not having the capacity for language, self-reflection, and culture make us different from just about every animal known to man? Different doesn’t mean better, but to deny that there is something special to humans is ludicrous. As far as we know humans are the only creatures that have an ontological stand on their being, because to some extent this requires language.

]]> By: Winslie Gomez http://philosophyandpsychology.com/?p=54&cpage=1#comment-40 Winslie Gomez Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:50:38 +0000 http://philosophyandpsychology.wordpress.com/?p=54#comment-40 Everything exists, Not just humans. We are not some how elevated, unless you want to make the "soul" construct. Everything exists, Not just humans. We are not some how elevated, unless you want to make the “soul” construct.

]]>