Heidegger (H.)\u00a0tells us\u00a0we all have a pre-cognitive understanding of “being” already at work in our “everydayness”.\u00a0 There are different ways that we relate to being.\u00a0 For example, when we use a hammer to build something, we are relating to that hammer with a “pre-understanding” of its being.\u00a0 We are relating to it in the mode of instrumentality.\u00a0 In German, Heidegger refers to this as zuhanden, ready-to-hand.\u00a0 In that mode, “being” shows itself as “disappearing in use”.\u00a0 We relate to the being of the hammer as a “tool”.\u00a0 If the hammer breaks while it is disappearing in use we immediately relate to it in another mode “present at hand”.\u00a0 We look at it and say “stupid hammer” how dare you!\u00a0 It becomes conspicuous, even a bit intrusive.\u00a0 “Present at hand” is how science relates to being.\u00a0 In this mode being is present as a thing (substance), an object of study, and shows itself to us.\u00a0 In German, Heidegger refers to this as vorhanden, present-at-hand.\u00a0 For H. when being is mis-understood (semblance) we relate to it in in-authenticity.\u00a0 If we pre-understand our environment as instrumentality, we use it to accomplish a task such that it disappears in use, we use oil to make our cars go, we use trees to build our houses, etc. – \u00a0then, we pre-understand the being of nature\/environment as \u201cstanding reserve\u201d.\u00a0 This is the problem of technology.\u00a0 It comes from a confusion of how we relate to the being of \u201cnature\u201d, as a semblance of \u201cnature\u201d.\u00a0 Why do I emphasize \u201cnature\u201d\u201d?\u00a0 Because this shows something else about how we relate to being, we are historical beings.\u00a0 We live in a \u201cstretch\u201d of time that goes from a past to a future not an instant present.\u00a0 \u201cNature\u201d is a term\/relationship to a being that is carried with us from language, philosophy, history \u2013 metaphysics.\u00a0 It tells us a pre-cognitive understanding of what something \u201cis\u201d, its being.\u00a0 When what something \u201cis\u201d is a semblance we have failed to relate authentically with \u201cit\u201d.\u00a0 The being of human (dasein) is what H. spends much of his effort on in Being and Time.\u00a0 A few examples:\u00a0\u00a0 The experience of time \u2013 there is lived time and abstract, historical time.\u00a0 Our history informs us that time is a series of abstract \u201cnow\u201d moments and yet the way we live time is as a stretch.\u00a0 When we are happy time seems\/feels like it flies by quickly.\u00a0 When we are depressed time drags on forever.\u00a0 So the experience of time is different than the abstract notion of time as \u201cnow\u201d moments.\u00a0 Why do we privilege abstract time? \u2013 because we are historical beings and pre-understand time as an abstraction (i.e., a history defined by \u201cnow\u201d moments) – this informs us about time – not how we experience it.\u00a0 Another example:\u00a0 The experience of space \u2013 history tells us that space is linear extension, \u201cthings\u201d are x number of feet away in 3 dimensional space\u2026but what about lived space?\u00a0 – When I am looking at a glass of water while wearing glasses the glasses on my face is closer to me in terms of linear extension but in a lived sense I am closer to the glass of water, I am together with the glass of water, co-habiting its space.\u00a0 So humans can de-sever regions of space and bring them close or far at will.\u00a0 If I am walking down a hallway I am not calculating the feet to all the walls, floor and ceiling (as perhaps a robot would do) to orient myself, to keep from falling.\u00a0 In a lived sense, I am co-habiting the region of the hallway and orienting myself accordingly.\u00a0 Again, we privilege the abstract over the lived (phenomenological) experience because we are historical beings.\u00a0 This is a short intro. into H. and his work.\u00a0 It gets better!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Heidegger (H.)\u00a0tells us\u00a0we all have a pre-cognitive understanding of “being” already at work in our “everydayness”.\u00a0 There are different ways that we relate to being.\u00a0 For example, when we use a hammer to build something, we are relating to that hammer with a “pre-understanding” of its being.\u00a0 We are relating to it in the mode […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[238],"class_list":["post-79","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-western-philosophy","tag-heidegger"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=79"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3941,"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79\/revisions\/3941"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mixermuse.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}