Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
kennyt
climber
|
|
New rule at least one new T&A shot per page.
|
|
kennyt
climber
|
|
Yes, were waiting
|
|
part-time communist
climber
|
|
what run-ons and slip ons?
yea, I have a BA in Philosophy from UCLA:
now that you got me going, a philosophy essay of mine from long time ago:
Darija Malinauskas
PHIL 110
12/05/06
Heidegger contrasts instrumental or objectifying thinking with what he variously calls recollective or meditative thinking. What is this contrast, and what do you make of it?
Throughout Being and Time, one of Heidegger’s primary tasks is to examine phenomena that raise questions about Dasein’s being and how this may show up for Dasein within certain engagements or contexts. There is an underlying theme here that is carried into his later texts; however the manner in which Heidegger follows an interpretative method in order to access an ‘unraveling’ of the meaning of being varies. For instance, we see that there is increasing stress placed on a “handing over” of Being, in the case where Dasein is a receiver rather than a source or creator of being. Heidegger wishes to reinterpret a way in which we can come to understand the phenomenon of being as a happening that does not occur as a result of a creation of consciousness, but rather one that responds to a “call of being.” The earlier Heideggerian conception suggests an uncovering of realizations and orientations that occur around Dasein—in phenomena that reveals and manifests itself through and because of Dasein. In later Heidegger, there is a “gathering around” a clearing which lets meaning of being happen—something that Dasein awaits and responds to rather than creates.
Much like a historical time sets up a world of possibilities for us, so does language—a medium though which one is socially constructed in, as well as something that sets up meaning for Dasein. Language as ‘constitutive’, gives Dasein a world of meaning and reality. Thought, as a result, is directly linked to language in the sense that it is handed over to Dasein. We may conceive of Dasein as the creator and therefore the controller of both language and thought, however, according to Heidegger, this would entirely eliminate and cut off the possibilities for any meaning of being. Any way in which language can allow meaning to show up for us would be foreclosed. This is one of the primary dangers that would signify an ‘abandonment’ of thought rather than any cultivation of it that would allow for new ways of understanding of being.
Heidegger presents the notion of “instrumental thinking” in direct contrast to more meditative modes of thought in order to highlight this danger and to stress that the meaning of being cannot be reduced to a more quantifiable system or order. This would lead us in the wrong direction, not allowing us to pose questions concerning being. Instead, through objectification of thought, there is a certain degree of manipulative transformation involved—where things are reduced to certain “technical-scientific, quantitative frames of reference”(Heidegger, 345), rather than allowing for “things to be what they are and show their many-sidedness.” It is within the technological context that both ways of thinking are presented as in conflict with, but necessary for each other.
Any advancement in terms of technological-based frames of thinking is substituting a controlling subject in place of a pursuit and questioning of being. However, instead of viewing technology as a hindrance to thinking or something that imposes restraints, limitations, or ‘power over’ as we become subject to it; instrumental thought which derives its basis from a technological setting can give rise to a recollective or reflective mode of evaluation. The two ways in which we can think about our situation (instrumental and reflective) both stand in different relations and references in how we can perceive our own being, but do not stand apart or oppose each other. This is simply because one mode of thought may allow a greater sense of attunement to the possibility or necessity for another one to arise. For example, an orientation to a more instrumental way of thinking, and therefore one that hinders different possibilities or meanings of being to arise, may—in principle, be responsible for the emergence of meditative thought due to the effects of constraint. Essentially, the question of being may arise from a positing of self in terms of an instrumental and quantifiable domain of categorization. There is a certain relationship that arises here where both the technological order and whatever counters it, whether it is reflective or meditative thought, relies on a constraint or systematization of thought in order for any assessment to arise. Objectification calls out a need for a recollective form of analysis. (subject responds to it by claiming that it is my pursuit, my necessity, my own condition-and in that respect, takes on a more controlling, assertive position to seek it out rather than a passive receiver of being.)
Thinking is not to be viewed of in terms of something that becomes an action “only because some effect issues from it or because it is applied.”(Heidegger, 217) Rather, such action “concerns the relation of Being to man”, “listens to Being” (220), and is “claimed by Being so that it can say the truth of Being.”(218) There is an active engagement involved here, a reciprocal relationship that responds and aspires to the truth of Being. A more technical interpretation of thought, which may take the form of instrumental thinking, is viewed in the traditional sense of “reflection in service of doing and making” (218) or applied to a practical use that comes out of thinking. Thinking by itself, which may take the form of meditative thought, is not practical, and therefore falls into the irrational that holds no criterion for validity. Heidegger would assert that this disqualification or objection to thinking and any attempts to objectify it would fail to assert Being as the “element of thinking” (219) and further only reduce it into certain causal relationships alone or a positing of events or happenings in Dasein’s history. The question of being must remain an “open question for the careful attention of thinking.” (Heidegger, 238) This is an active engagement that preserves as well as allows for an attentiveness of how being can show up.
Heidegger wishes to discard the notion of thought as being enslaved to and represented by a for-structure, with certain ends and means to be attained. Dasein would then be placed as one in a position of mastery, which would not allow one to rise above or take full command of the “constructing” or “technological building” since any attempt to impose this control would remain within the domains of the technological. We could not put a stop or halt to this constructing in order to assert this form of mastery; the constructing is continually progressing.
Furthermore, through a metaphysical mode of evaluation which is rooted in subjectivity, there is already an objectification implied where the subject is capable to control the mind and posit it as the ground of all knowledge. If we take the Heideggerian perspective in concern to how language gives us our place and sets up a world, thinking arises as an activity that allows for a ‘clearing’ and ways in which meaning can stand out. This is ultimately a revealing rather than a construction that is contained in and consists in a subjective assertion of mere possession and control.
If language is reduced to an instrument of a controlling subject, then any new way of understanding being is ultimately repudiated. Heidegger wishes to call attention to thinking as an activity of responsiveness rather than a breakdown that consists of propositional knowledge or any method of logic, rule-based expressions that objectify thinking. According to the Cartesian perception, thinking is to be understood and treated along certain lines that stress the category of rational animal. Rationality is viewed in terms of a fixed, set category of thought that belongs exclusively to the Cartesian subject who is positioned within a realm that separates the material, object world from the ‘knowing subject’ or mind. Heidegger responds by suggesting that if we take this perspective as the starting point, we ‘close ourselves off’ and therefore become susceptible to a reductionism of thought and being. There is no room left for the capacity for a questioning concerning the meaning of being, only instrumental language that stresses the emergence of a controlling subject.
Any instrumental form of how we engage in the world through thought implies a refusal of truth. The way in which truth can be revealed is ultimately blocked. However, through recollection, we come to see technology, for instance as something that opens one up to the danger of such a ‘covering up of truth’ and therefore, we become more attune to what threatens truth or a revealing of being. The question of being is to be preserved, and meditative thought sustains this by means of counteracting the ordering and objectification of Dasein where “everything will present itself only in the unconcealment of a standing-reserve.”(Heidegger, 339).
The technological context envisions objectification of both the environment and the subject; however, “it is technology itself that makes the demand on us to think in another way.” (Heidegger, 355) We see a cohesion of both instrumental and meditative thought, were both are not isolated and in constant tension with the other, but necessary to invoke a reconsideration of thought. The ways in which we can be caught in objectification of thought provides us with a certain threat—it “threatens with the possibility that all revealing will be consumed in ordering.” (Heidegger, 339) Heidegger continues to note that human activity cannot ‘counter this danger’. Rather, it is meditative and reflective thought that recollects and “ponders this rising, above all—through our catching sight of this unfolding of technology.”(p. 337) Ultimately, the ‘challenging forth’ is what recollective thought brings out, where we come to confront this ‘unfolding’ of technological classifications and, most importantly—be attune to this advancement and how it may pose as a danger to the essential unconcealment of Being. In order to assess such technological conditions and react to the hindrance it poses to thinking and questioning, we must already be within the mode of reflective thought. Only then can even conceive of this danger and to fully evaluate that technology can restrict, as well as open up new ways in which we can perceive the meaning of being. Heidegger remarks on this relationship: “essential reflection upon technology and decisive confrontation with it must happen in the realm that is akin to the essence of technology, and on the other hand, fundamentally different to it.” (p. 340)
If we remain in the mode of instrumental thought in how we can come to understand or configure ourselves within the technological context, “we remain transfixed in the will to master (technology).” (Heidegger, 337) This mode of thought remains in a perpetual cycle that targets an objectification of the individual in ways that can be measurable or comparable to other contexts that stress quantification or an ‘ordering’. We could not get past this and would only pass over the meaning of being or any way in which we can come to ‘build a way of thinking’. Any ability to discover different ways in which this questioning and as a result—the meaning of being can be revealed to us would be denied. Yet it is only through this limitation that any further questioning arises—it opens up the possibility to detect a “call of being”.
ENJOY
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
Naughty, Sully...
Yeah Happie, this thread has Theatre!
Now if the Fish really gets Cilley into this it could be Gran mal theatre!
"Emmmanuel Kant was a real pissant...."
|
|
part-time communist
climber
|
|
Sartre is cool, but I opted for Nietzsche
Gotta love a little bit of Hegel sprinkled in there hehehe
|
|
happiegrrrl
Trad climber
www.climbaddictdesigns.com
|
|
Ummm...you may want to think twice about exposing your full name online. I mean, if you ever want to get a job, at least.
I googled the name and it brought me to a twitter profile of that name, with a picture that is unmistakeably the same person as the images in this thread, and though it was only 4 posts, they seem to be the type of "make money!" posts with links to spam....
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
If you google my name all kinds of fab slander pops up. I never worried about it. Whassup with that?
Nothin' on TV, and I'm too tired to read. Guess I'll go make some popcorn...
|
|
part-time communist
climber
|
|
Yea, I've been poking around a bit in that What is Mind thread, trying to find the opportune moment to bite
kind of like a dog foaming at the mouth and aiming for the neck, when properly provoked....
|
|
Bad Acronym
climber
Little Death Hollow
|
|
Do yourself a favor and nuke this thread.
|
|
Karen
Trad climber
So Cal urban sprawl Hell
|
|
Ptc, you wouldn't make a speck on Leggs a**, she is way hotter than you, more dignified and a real woman~ she's gorgeous.
|
|
part-time communist
climber
|
|
Do yourself a favor and nuke this thread.
hell no. conformity and peer pressure is the best way to surrender your freedom.
|
|
part-time communist
climber
|
|
Ptc, you wouldn't make a speck on Leggs a**, she is way hotter than you, more dignified and a real woman~ she's gorgeous.
Cool.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
Kiwi, maby you could post up a pic of what I'd look like after your careful ministrations.
Or several for me to chose from.
|
|
part-time communist
climber
|
|
Kiwi and PTC are one in the same. You create a troll account and a backup to support the troll account's agenda.
wrong.
Heres a pic of kiwitard and me on Mt. Shuksan August 2011:
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
This thread makes me want to console a beaten horse so that I can get committed. Why is that?
Kiwi, do you ever consider regrowing your hair? Do your people do that?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!