HOLY SH#T THEY'RE EVERYWHERE: SEIF'S THREADS

[Agreed]

Oh, man, hell yes. Alright, so dasein is pretty straightforward. Being in the world. The concept of "authenticity" relates to Heidegger's conception of mitsein, or "being-with." It's a way to note that, to paraphrase, you don't really learn about "being in the world" (or "being" as such, dasein) by studying "I;" introspection along the lines of the empiricists of any stripe and even further into Kant and other categorical mind-centric philosophers isn't productive, because being-in is always an experience. Being-in-the-world and being-with, dasein and mitsein, are concepts used to explain the relationship of the individual - as such - to the world and to others (but in his vocabulary, as you probably know an intentional departure from traditional German terminology for what might on the surface seem to be similar themes).

 

Authenticity relates specifically to the "they." It's actually a lot more easy to parse than it seems. The "they" is just as we typically use the word, the way that observation-humor comedians got a lot of mileage out of it in the '90s. "Who are 'they,' anyway?" as in "They say that..." Another way to think of it is as kind of the general sociological pressure of propriety in a given environment, though I think that escapes Heidegger's phenomenological horizon to a degree. To be authentically (as opposed to inauthentically) is to be without subsuming to the "they." In a practical example, you have a hammer (if you've read any Heidegger you'll like this - if not, if you do later you'll think back and go, oh, a hammer, that was cute)... Anyway, you've got a hammer. Of course what a hammer is is wrapped up in the projection of possibilities relative to dasein; a hammer is a tool, a weapon, a doorstop, firewood, any number of things relative to the horizon of dasein and the projection of possibilities. But what if you were constrained by what the "they" had to say about a hammer? Then you'd probably only be allowed to drive nails with it. Authenticity is to a degree the assertion of possibilities that might go against the "they."

 

So how the heck does that relate to HCFX? What if instead of posting memes until the people that made them want to blow their brains out, we were just genuine with eachother? What if we dropped our guard a little and spoke honestly about our thoughts without worrying that we would be challenged or ridiculed? Here, by the way, is the appearance of a foundation for ethics in phenomenology in Heidegger, which was expanded upon (and broken off from quite sharply, too) by Levinas, but that's a different matter.

[Wood Chuck]

SEIF 4 LYFE, dawg

Yo! Bobby!

[ben_allison]

What if instead of posting memes until the people that made them want to blow their brains out, we were just genuine with each other?

 

 

It'd 100% love to have a Philosophy Corner here, and would definitely love to see people being more realistic versions of themselves... but you HAVE to admit, animated gifs of Katy Perry bouncing up and down will never get old.

[Dr.Picklebottom]

The post that you quoted in agreement was a post telling me to shut up. If you'll read the post, it starts with me saying "Seif is cool in my book." and goes on to suggest that as a community we could perhaps be a little bit less acrimonious toward one another even ironically, since it kind of darkens the mood of the place in general and could hurt the community spirit. What can start as a joke can get serious and obnoxious pretty quick when it comes to denigration of other members.

shut up, man.

[ben_allison]

shut up, man.

THAT'S SO RUDE.

[placebo62]

{censored} this thread in the bum

[Naterel]

gently

[Agreed]

shut up, man.

I don't like you.

[Dr.Picklebottom]

I don't like you.

i cant stand anything about you.

[Agreed]

So long as it's understood.

[Dr.Picklebottom]

agreed.

[goodhonk]

you guys scared off melx again.





[YOUTUBE]oMYg4W6dFfI[/YOUTUBE]