Heidegger life and Philosophy 2 of 6

The "of" here is to be understood in a double sense : "concerning" (i.e. about) and "belonging to". The question "of" Being is a self-questioning. Man is not some third-party bystander in all of this. He belongs to Being, as does everything else.

Equally though, if we follow Heidegger's train of thought, "man" qua man IS only when he is appropriated by Being in the Event. In other words, man only comes to himself and is himself when Being "uses" him to question itself.

The question of Being is, always was and always will be, the greatest question not only for philosophy or for man ; it is always the true "endgame" of Being itself.

And the answer ? It is the question ! But along the way lies tragic wisdom ...

According to Heidegger, questioning is "the piety of thought".

"Being" (or "life", if you like) DOES require an answer. Moreover, it is not "man" who asks the question : it is Being itself. The question "of" Being is not merely the question, asked by man, concerning Being, but the question posed THROUGH man, by Being, to itself.

Whenever the question of Being arises, i.e. whenever philosophy IS, it is Being that asks - not "man".

derritrane, I'm sure you could word your ideas / questions / general points in less academic / esoteric terms.

As regards science vs. philosophy, the contrast is simple :

Science deals with beings - and nothing more. Philosophy (as meta-physics) goes beyond beings in order to try to understand them AS SUCH (i.e. AS "beings"). Philosophy therefore deals with that which is never a being : Nothing. Only Nothing is metaphysical.

Genuine philosophy is actually very simple. There are these days too many "clever" interpretations of what it is. My suggestion to anyone who really wants to know what philosophy is would be to first of all read Plato. Heidegger, too, often opens his enquiries into the essence of this or that in a Platonic manner. Nothing has changed : if several things "are" then we need to know what we mean by "being" (i.e. to be), and so on. This method is sound.

Modern science is so full of wonderful discoveries that it is impossible to do anything but praise it for the work that it does. But the original, genuinely philosophical questions, still remain unanswered by it. At least for those who haven't carefully read Heidegger. If the whole world is made of atoms then what are atoms ?

?

Science doesn't go deep enough. It stops just where genuine questioning really ought to begin. The answer is in YOU.

What is the "divine" to you, zarakhast?
Games of "sub-ordination", too, are played with, by "B/being", perhaps, through

"beings", perhaps...
What are you? "Being"? "dasein"? "zarakhast"?etc., are not all their meanings
complicit with each other?
What is "science"? the dictionary of a species' abbreviated observations?

An "atom"is the asymptotic idealisation of the quest to control through ever increasing divisibility (which enables reconstitution according to the "controller's desire"). It is the pursuit of a religious belief in physical magnitudes.
"Science"is a devotional discipline that notarizes observations as "acceptable" and
"reliable" for the "community", adjusting common epistemologies according to social
"needs".It can be an honourable task, but is often compromised by ignorance of various sorts.

"Questioning and Answering" is merely one mode of "Being" zarakhast, "life", "being", was never a question that required an answer.
Questioning/Answering is a mode of being, not the only one. It is the alienating
objectification of our own "essential constitution"
[a constitution that is always allready (sic) "dependently originated", "given", IF!,
one does anything less than wholly identify with the "totality", and yet this"totality"
is a construction, too],

as one "thing" dialectically counterpo(I-i)sed to another thing Called World. This
gives rise to the entire calculus of possibilities between Subject and Object, being-
there and the theatres of spatiotemporalty, ontic-ontological possibility, etc..

"Depth" is a matter of perspective.