For those unfamiliar with the concept of Dasein, here are some links (decent primers on it):

http://royby.com/philosophy/pages/dasein.html
http://www.personal.kent.edu/~oazeri/onpaper7.html

and... the cliff's notes version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasein

This question I'm posing is ontic in nature: what do you think the "roots" of Dasein are? What are the physical or non-physical properties of human beings that makes us able to pose ontological questions?

If I were to pose a guess, I would say that our brains are so complex and heavy in perceptive hardware that we perceive ourselves. In the survivalist programming of the brain, it's in our vested interest to draw a distinction between ourselves and the world around us. This requires a perception of self. As man began to ask ontic questions, it was only a matter of time before he turned his need for explanation towards his own nature and being.

What do you guys think?

[Edited on May 24, 2006 at 11:05 PM. Reason : more links.]

5/24/2006 10:57:59 PM

"Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar"

5/24/2006 11:14:34 PM

http://www.ephilosopher.com/hosting/drinking_song.mp3

[Edited on May 24, 2006 at 11:18 PM. Reason : ]

5/24/2006 11:17:45 PM

you know that postulate to many a story

"i guess you had to be there"

well now, i have a whole new spin on things whenever people say that

5/25/2006 12:45:19 AM

Quote :

"Heidegger (1962) said that a principle task was to reveal that knowing has a phenomenal character of a Being which is in and towards the world. Knowing is the possession of those human-Things which are able to know and is an internal characteristic of those entities. Heidegger expanded upon this by saying that knowing is a ‘concern’ and to know something, even with little interest, is a tangible kind of Being-in-the-world. In fact for Heidegger, even forgetting modifies the primordial Being-in and even as knowledge did not create the world nor forgetting destroy it, it follows that Dasein only realises itself when it grasps reality (Steiner 1978)."

this reminds me of the chapter "The Persistence of Memory" in Sagan's Cosmos

5/25/2006 12:53:19 AM

You poor, misguided child.

5/25/2006 4:11:43 AM

This isn't a general thread about Dasein or peoples' opinions of it, or peoples' opinion of trying to figure out the ontic roots of it. To claim that Heidegger wasn't concerned with scientific applications of his theories is disingenous, seeing as how he was closely involved with a form of psychology which used his account of Dasein.

I'm more interested in what everybody thinks makes up this difference between human beings, and say, some other being.

5/25/2006 8:12:47 AM

Err, I meant to say this isn't a general thread about Dasein, BUT it's a thread of peoples' opinion of the ontic roots of it.

5/25/2006 9:54:47 AM

^ in that light he is not that different from Descartes. he is basically saying to exist, you have to be conscious. however, he goes a step further to say that without your consciousness the world will go on without you. therefore, your existence is a choice you make. i think he may be implying that humans have more hardware and software and are thus more adept at consciousness than other creatures, but an unexamied life doesn't allow you to be that special little unique you.

5/25/2006 10:04:41 AM

More or less, but he's much different from Descartes in the sense that he doesn't remove a human being from the specific moment the human being exists in.

I don't think it's just examining your life that "cures" Verfallen. I think the state of Verfallen is characterized as being a state caused by fear, a state that tries to obscure and cover up the truth of impending death.

5/25/2006 10:10:05 AM

Quote :

"he is basically saying to exist, you have to be conscious"

Now that I think about it, is this so? I think Dasein is fundamentally different than "I think, therefore I am".

Being in an unconscious state wouldn't suggest you don't exist, just that you've assumed the state of ... not being conscious. In assuming death, the Dasein assumes the state of not having the potential to "be there" anymore.

5/25/2006 10:45:58 AM

The concept of being has always intrigued me. Dasein is different from "I think, therefore I am" mainly because it questions everything about the concept of 'being.' "I think, therefore I am" assumes that one is a being because they think. Dasein doesn't necessarily take this leap of faith, instead it is more of a constant questioning of what it means to 'be.' Intelligent animals (Dolphins/Elephants) may be capable of Dasein, without being able to 'think' like a human. Dasein also inadvertently raises even more questions about time, because of the nature of the constant philosophical questioning of being.

Anyway, Dasein seems to be more of a poster child for asking deeper questions about 'being' than anything really substantially philosophically authoratative.

[Edited on May 25, 2006 at 12:30 PM. Reason : -]

5/25/2006 12:29:22 PM

It is, but I wonder if the nature of our perceptive processes allows such a being to arise.

5/25/2006 12:31:13 PM

Okay so I've thought about this some, and "ontic" is probably the wrong term for what I'm looking for here.

The ontic difference between Dasein and other beings is the fact that ontological inquires can be made. I guess what I'm looking for is exactly what characteristics serve as the foundation for this extension.

5/26/2006 6:57:04 PM