Heidegger on Truth and Finitude, part 2, an essay by the late John Haugeland

[Israe5l]

I have been useing the vocab of "logical divide", I think it fits best with Dasein and something else. But I do not want to use it as mathematical logic. I like to use it as Hegel did. Perhaps its a prescriptive vocab. We need to begin with beings (not things) and our understanding of them.

[Israe5l]

There are empirical divide and there are logical divide (The two divide are perhaps only empirically divded.) The divide between dead matter and life forms are only empirical divide. While The difference between Humans (Dasein) and the rest are logical divide.

[Israe5l]

The thing as an object we can become closer and closer in its measurements (the approximation). The being (as I am useing the term), we understand it exactly. If we can not understand being exactly, how are we to understand anything? How can we have language to start? For example how can we have Being and Nothing. We begin with an exact concept and apply it to a being. On the otherhand, we come up with a measurement tool (is exact) and we apply it approximately to the thing (which is inexact).

[Israe5l]

@Israe5l This is an awesome point.

[Israe5l]

ug, I thought there was something important difference between Being and being.

And there is a difference between a thing and a being. A thing a person can approximate. While being, a person can understand.

Even if this is not a heideggerian idea, its a pretty interesting one, no doubt.

[emblemOFbeing]

@Israe5l that is a pretty important difference, I'd say! But, just remember, this is the late John Haugeland's (somewhat controversial) interpretation of Heidegger... What do you mean by approximate vs understand? The first time you said thing vs a being, the second thing vs being, which did you mean? You should make a video on that. Cheers and thanks for watching.