Time and Care

Time and Care
The Great Whatever
habeo, non habeor
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 01, 2011

Total Topics: 66
Total Posts: 3303
#1 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Feb 8, 2013 - 3:49 AM:
Subject: Time and Care
The past is that which one cannot help but treat in a certain way. (Thrownness)

The present is that which matters most, which is the same as to say, it is the least avoidable. (Facticity/Fallenness)

The future is that which is manipulable. (Projection)

The past informs, the present suffers, and the future tries.

Time is a form of care, of struggling and dealing with things.

---

Is this a fair paraphrase of Heidegger's view of time?
On Feb 8, 2013 - 9:30 AM, Kali Yuga responded: If it makes sense, then you're not doing it right. grin
On Feb 8, 2013 - 1:13 PM, The Great Whatever responded: You think so? Maybe he wouldn't want his views printable on a business card...
Cleantes
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Jun 28, 2012
Location: Somewhere in the universe

Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 363
#2 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Feb 8, 2013 - 1:56 PM:

Thrownness is not what you said. It means that the Dasein is always given in some way, i.e. it is determined.

Facticity is the sum of properties and circumstances that determine the Dasein.

And I think Heidegger said the future is what matters the most, not the present.

You are right about the fact that time is a matter of care, but it is only one of the many things that fall under the concept of 'care'.

Been long time since I read Sein und Zeit, so if you think I'm wrong then say so.
Landru Guide Us
PF Addict
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 30, 2010
Location: Austin, Texas

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2357
#3 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Feb 8, 2013 - 7:56 PM:

Heidegger concludes that time is a form of care, dealing with the possibilities of the person we can be (in the future) but are not, and the inevitable limit of those possibilites in our own impossibility, which is death.

Care is always about future possibilities, "thrown projection," so I'm not sure it's best to say it's about dealing with things. Rather in projecting our possibilities, things become present as the things that relate to that possible future.

Edited by Landru Guide Us on Feb 8, 2013 - 8:02 PM
Csalisbury
PF Addict
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 02, 2011

Total Topics: 42
Total Posts: 2024
#4 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Feb 8, 2013 - 10:18 PM:

Cleantes wrote:

And I think Heidegger said the future is what matters the most, not the present.


You remember correctly. From section 65 of Being & Time

Heidi wrote:
In enumerating the ecstasies, we have always mentioned the future first. That should indicate that the future has priority in the ecstatic unity of primordial and authentic temporality....Primordial and authentic temporality temporalizes itself out of the authentic future, and indeed in such a way that, futurally having-been, it first arouses the present. The primary phenomenon of primordial and authentic temporality is the future.


There are mutiple temporalities in Heidegger, but they are all derived from a primordical ecstatic temporality.

How I've come to understand Heidegger's (authentic) temporality (only read Division Two once, so take it with a grain of salt):

In 'authentic' temporality - in becoming 'resolute' - we come toward our nullity (what we always have been) through the future. Our projective concern with what will befall us or who we will become is inevitable because everything everything of us but our 'null core' might, at any moment, fade away. Our pure potentiality always excees what is actual, but that pure potentiality is inseparable from a constitutive nullity. That's where the importance of death as a limit case comes in. By authentically facing up to the possibility of our death, we see the point where even our nullity qua pure potential is nullified. The understanding of the limit case shines light on what is limited. This allows us to see that what we authentically are, we always have been - nothing but potential and finitude (ever interrelated). We can accept that there is something central to our being which cannot be explained by anything but the fact that we are and must become. Any extrinsic way of understanding ourselves (by reference to some actualized feature of ourself) can only work by making use of some ephemeral aspect of our life which may, at any moment, be lost.

In short: Futurity is how we move to the 'past', that is, toward what we always have been. We come toward our nullity.

We realize that only we and we alone, can be responsibility for ourselves. We become aware of the sheer contingency of our factical 'situation' with no comprehensive way of accounting for it and no way to anticipate what it will reveal. This, in turn, births a certain attitude toward our surroundings that's something like a clarified, immediate, sense of place . In taking responsibility for ourselves - in understanding that we cannot rely on the knowledge of 'Das Man' to understand the space we inhabit - we are able to resolutely 'hold ourselves open' to the situation. I think this might have some genealogical relationship with Husserl's epoche. Only by coming to ourselves can we free ourselves of the derived knowledge of 'Das Man' and actually see our factical situation --and so 'find' ourselves.

The type of temporality Heidegger is concerned with is a weird structural temporality (sometimes couched in the language of 'eternity') which appears to involve proximity to a clear awareness of our situation. The structure of our 'finding ourselves' by holding ourselves open.

The meaning of any being is 'split' among future, past, and present. The meaning of any being is how it underlies our projects, but our (authentic) projects involve coming toward our past and thus to the unveiling of the situation. Care of beings is a way of modulating the play between veiling and unveiling.

I tend to see ontic structures of care as ways of maintaining a distance between oneself and a heightened disclosure of Being. A dispersal of the self that is made possible by the play of veiling/unveiling but which "masks" that play in its 'purity' by distributing it.

It seems like this temporality qua modulating proximity to a presence precedes - and makes possible -our using specific information from our past to project specific paths thereby giving things their specific meanings.

Edited by Csalisbury on Feb 9, 2013 - 1:45 PM
StaticAge
Fearless Vampire Killer
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 353
#5 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Feb 8, 2013 - 11:43 PM:

In my opinion, a lot of Division Two is the culmination of what Heidegger read into the phenomenology of early Christians, when they "broke" with the history that had so far constituted who they were (especially as Jews), but on reflection, in the blink of an eye, saw a new future that they met up with and which then reinterpreted the meaning of Jewish history and scripture, as well as their own lived past.

Strip out all specificities, make it just a general experience, and that is the core phenomenon Heidegger is trying to explain, and he uses Count Yorck's thoughts on historicality (in conversation with Dilthey) as a model or a structure to plug it into.

On Feb 8, 2013 - 11:55 PM, Csalisbury responded: I've always suspected that much of the discussion of historicality is derived from Nietzsche's On the Use and Abuse of History for Life. Edited by Csalisbury on Feb 9, 2013 - 12:15 AM
The Great Whatever
habeo, non habeor
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 01, 2011

Total Topics: 66
Total Posts: 3303
#6 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Feb 9, 2013 - 6:19 AM:

Cleantes, I think there is no disagreement between us on thrownness, just that we used different words - determination and informedness are about the same here. I'm not sure about your characterization of facticity, though - so far as I know, there's no sum of properties that characterizes Dasein (that would make it something present-at-hand).

Re: the future being more important than the present - it's tough for me to get a handle on. After all, there is a sense in which it "never is" the future; tomorrow never comes, and there is only ever a future for a present. What is it for something to be present, rather than future? It seems to me that it means nothing more than a certain vivacity, which is the same as to say it most drastically demands our attention. Of course, this will always relate to the future as well - but although the different forms of time are inseparably bound up, it seems to me that this sort of demand made of us, and which imposes itself on us so as to make it matter most, is what it means to be present. In the past, I can hide by reassuring myself it's done with ("can't do anything about it now") or by being a revisionist ("I suppose it wasn't all that bad..."), and in the future I can hide by procrastinating ("not yet, not yet, not yet") or treating it as something evitable or phantasmal ("It isn't really so now, it only will be") but the present makes no excuses and offers no shelter.
On Feb 9, 2013 - 1:08 PM, Csalisbury responded: But refusing to take shelter doesn't mean facing the present rather than living in the past or future. The examples of rationalization and procrastination you offer are ways of turning away from all of the 'authentic' ecstasies.
On Feb 9, 2013 - 8:15 PM, The Great Whatever responded: I don't think it's a matter of refusing to take shelter, though, but of being unable to.
On Feb 9, 2013 - 8:28 PM, Csalisbury responded: Are you talking about searing pain, specifically? Because I don't see why one can't, in most cases, take similar shelter from the present: "That's just the way things are" "It is what it is" "It'll Pass"
On Feb 10, 2013 - 5:25 AM, The Great Whatever responded: No, I think anything. Though pain may be useful for driving the point home, the mantra "I'm not in pain" is about as effective as "this isn't blue." Any attempt to deny or escape presupposes something that is not yet in one's power to change.
fdrake
Hoak, Hogan.
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 13, 2010
Location: Bonnie Scotland

Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 1187
#7 - Quote - Permalink
3 of 3 people found this post helpful
Posted Feb 9, 2013 - 2:41 PM:

After all, there is a sense in which it "never is" the future; tomorrow never comes, and there is only ever a future for a present.


I think Heidegger mobilizes this insight in order to show the primacy of the future and thus of authentic temporality. I think the strategy employed is showing that being toward death is employed in both, and the phenomena that authentic Dasein freakin' owns still weigh on inauthentic or average Dasein.

William Blattner on this, discussing a Heidegger quote:

Possibility, which Dasein in each case is existentially, is distinguished just as much from empty, logical possibility as from the contingency of something occurrent [vorhanden], in so far as with the latter this and that can ‘happen’ [‘passieren’]” (SZ: 143). In other words, the possibility of being a musician is futural, not because it is merely possible, rather than actual. Instead, it is a possibility that can never be actual, a future that can never be present.

This is a statement of how the three different modes of time (past, present, future) = (existence, facticity, falling) belong together (are co-primordial). That "tomorrow never comes" is a statement of Dasein's orientation towards death. Whatever the hell you do, you put some aspects of yourself at stake.

“Dasein is factically dying as long as it exists” (SZ: 251, quote taken from Companion to Heidegger).

Since you're always doing stuff, in some way or another, the significance of those actions effects you - doing this post instead of studying might fuck up my grades -. The question is whether you let what's weighing on you pass you by, or own it. How you could be accountable for the significance of your actions to yourself and your surroundings is guilt: your weight on the world and yourself by the actions you do. Sartre says we're condemned to be free, Heidegger might say we're condemned to act meaningfully. Owning up to those meanings and fashioning them - not into some romantic "life project", as if Dasein had a synoptic vision of its own "true" self narrative - is authenticity, which is Dasein's "resonance" to being toward death - no matter what you do, you're at stake. And thus a "resonance" with him/herself - owning up to how you're at stake and working with it.

Authenticity is rocking the fuck out of Dasein's condition - finitude, being-toward-death.

In a nutshell: the death bell tolls in whatever I do (the primacy of the future, projection is a being-toward-death), it's up to me whether I ring it (own up to what I am and am not and do stuff with that in mind).













Edited by fdrake on Feb 9, 2013 - 3:02 PM
On Feb 9, 2013 - 2:57 PM, Csalisbury responded: This all sounds right... but what do you make of Heidegger's notions of "situation" & "moment" (augenblick)?
On Feb 9, 2013 - 3:06 PM, fdrake responded: Don't have a clear conception. Will respond in PM.
Landru Guide Us
PF Addict
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 30, 2010
Location: Austin, Texas

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2357
#8 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Feb 13, 2013 - 4:18 PM:

fdrake wrote:


I think Heidegger mobilizes this insight in order to show the primacy of the future and thus of authentic temporality. I think the strategy employed is showing that being toward death is employed in both, and the phenomena that authentic Dasein freakin' owns still weigh on inauthentic or average Dasein.

William Blattner on this, discussing a Heidegger quote:

Possibility, which Dasein in each case is existentially, is distinguished just as much from empty, logical possibility as from the contingency of something occurrent [vorhanden], in so far as with the latter this and that can ‘happen’ [‘passieren’]" (SZ: 143). In other words, the possibility of being a musician is futural, not because it is merely possible, rather than actual. Instead, it is a possibility that can never be actual, a future that can never be present.

This is a statement of how the three different modes of time (past, present, future) = (existence, facticity, falling) belong together (are co-primordial). That "tomorrow never comes" is a statement of Dasein's orientation towards death. Whatever the hell you do, you put some aspects of yourself at stake.

…Dasein is factically dying as long as it exists" (SZ: 251, quote taken from Companion to Heidegger).

Since you're always doing stuff, in some way or another, the significance of those actions effects you - doing this post instead of studying might fuck up my grades -. The question is whether you let what's weighing on you pass you by, or own it. How you could be accountable for the significance of your actions to yourself and your surroundings is guilt: your weight on the world and yourself by the actions you do. Sartre says we're condemned to be free, Heidegger might say we're condemned to act meaningfully. Owning up to those meanings and fashioning them - not into some romantic "life project", as if Dasein had a synoptic vision of its own "true" self narrative - is authenticity, which is Dasein's "resonance" to being toward death - no matter what you do, you're at stake. And thus a "resonance" with him/herself - owning up to how you're at stake and working with it.

Authenticity is rocking the fuck out of Dasein's condition - finitude, being-toward-death.

In a nutshell: the death bell tolls in whatever I do (the primacy of the future, projection is a being-toward-death), it's up to me whether I ring it (own up to what I am and am not and do stuff with that in mind).







Bravo. A tour de force.
Rich Vernadeau
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Dec 16, 2012

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 297
#9 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Feb 14, 2013 - 3:23 PM:

Gertrude Stein had a theory of a "continuous NOW" which fascinated James Branch Cabell. In her theory, the past and future did not actually exist, there was only a "continuous now" which we all experience.
richrf
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Jun 07, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 1714
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Feb 14, 2013 - 3:34 PM:

Rich Vernadeau wrote:
Gertrude Stein had a theory of a "continuous NOW" which fascinated James Branch Cabell. In her theory, the past and future did not actually exist, there was only a "continuous now" which we all experience.


Since she lived during the period of time that Henri Bergson was so popular, my guess is that her thoughts might be derivative of Bergson's concept of Duration.

Recent Internal Replies
On Feb 10, 2013 - 5:25 AM, The Great Whatever replied internally to The Great Whatever's Cleantes, I think th....
On Feb 9, 2013 - 8:28 PM, Csalisbury replied internally to The Great Whatever's Cleantes, I think th....
On Feb 9, 2013 - 8:15 PM, The Great Whatever replied internally to The Great Whatever's Cleantes, I think th....
On Feb 9, 2013 - 3:06 PM, fdrake replied internally to fdrake's I think Heidegge....
On Feb 9, 2013 - 2:57 PM, Csalisbury replied internally to fdrake's I think Heidegge....
On Feb 9, 2013 - 1:08 PM, Csalisbury replied internally to The Great Whatever's Cleantes, I think th....
On Feb 8, 2013 - 11:55 PM, Csalisbury replied internally to StaticAge's In my opinion, a lot....
On Feb 8, 2013 - 1:13 PM, The Great Whatever replied internally to The Great Whatever's The past is that whi....
On Feb 8, 2013 - 9:30 AM, Kali Yuga replied internally to The Great Whatever's The past is that whi....

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.