Martin Heidegger was a German Professor of Philosophy known for his contributions to the meaning of being. It is a birthright to say that Existential Philosophy grew out of his philosophical underpinnings. Here I would like to explicate critically some of the terms that he has used. His magnum opus is Being and Time.
The first of the terms that he has used has come from Greek and refers to Aletheia. By Aletheia Heidegger meant how things of the world appear to human beings. He uses two corollary terms: un-closedness and un-concealment. To simplify the matter, I would like to put Aletheia as perception, cognition, and affection. For perception and cognition, epistemology is the effect. Affection can mean ecstasy or celebration or nausea of angst.
The second of the terms used by Heidegger is Apophantic. Apophantic refers to a statement that covers meaning. For example it is a euphemism to say that the Cow was put to sleep instead of the cow being slaughtered. It would be a pungent humor to say that the American President Donald Trump is vacationing in North Korea. Apophantic statements maintain a protean character by their elusiveness, irony and humor.
The next of the terms used by Heidegger is Being in the World or Dasein in German. With being in the world Heidegger wanted to eliminate distinctions between subject and object and the world. Being in the world is understood as a consciousness of something. It also opens the being to the futuristic world of possibilities.
Being towards death is the next of Heidegger’s term. Death here refers not to clinical death. Death is the dread or anguish. He dissects time as the notion of the present and eternal to modes of temporality. It is not clear as to what he means by eternal time. Again time is not in a linear progression as the past, present and future. Time for him is only a realm of possibilities. Death for Heidegger has the potentiality to be authentic and specific. Heidegger is being vague here as he connects death to the presence of being in the world. Heidegger is right when he says that the conception of death and the presence of being opens the subject of being to angst or dread.
The next of the terms used by Heidegger is being with. It refers to the spatial proximity of being with other beings. Behavior here performs an ideological function. As an ideology behavior can be social, anti social, psychotic or pathological. How to authenticate being as a behavioral ideology is a philosophical question and a problem.
The next of the terms used by Heidegger is care. Care is a kind of concern for the self when the being is in a participatory mode with other beings. The modality of care would include conciliation, opposition, assimilation and accumulation. Care could be identified with a Freudian Ego. Care is also related to the Sartre’s facticity of the body.
The next term of Heidegger is Destruction. Here he calls for the destruction of traditional ontological concepts like history, time, death, time etc. I would like to disagree with Heidegger there. When I look at history, I am from a decolonized nation, a brown Asian who feels prejudiced that his English is inferior. Sometimes I wish to embrace Americaness as a culture and a philosophy and not be an immigrant. It’s ironic to say that America imports French avant garde philosophers and exports missiles. I would also like to comment on time; the past, present has to be deconstructed radically with futuristic possibilities. Death is clinical; for religion it is another phase; for philosophy death is a problem.
The next of the terms used by Heidegger is discourse. He has mapped discourse into the ontological structure of being. Discourse is always being in a mode of participation. Discourse in postmodernism is dialogic and democratic.
The next of Heidegger’s concept is present at hand. It refers to the disinterested gaze at facts. A scientist might study stars naturalistically. He might not see the poet’s beauty in them.
The last of his concept is ready to hand. Here the being is in ecstasy, catharsis, or the being is in a state utter angst. Ready to hand is an emotive concept.
I have coined my own figure of speech called Semanto-Paradosis from semantics and paradox. It means a paradox which acts as double entendre.
Trump not Triumph uses the Whip of coercion and the Polish of Persuasion.
Had a dream today. Saw a squirrel enter into my hands, gave it to my wife who fed it and as soon as its belly peaked, it ran away. I live with a crazy wife who will put me in an asylum if I drink. For me a few pegs matter to lullaby me into sleep. As soon as I woke up, went out and a black cat crossed my way. I thought that lady luck will smile on me. I opened my email and became a black coffin. To my woe, my employer in Cambodia said in broken English my appointment was terminated as I could not keep the time. I was dilly dallying with them telling them the whole week, I will arrive tomorrow and day after. To tell you the truth I was anticipating the druids to offer me enough money for my airfare and visa through a lottery draw. Fate became an ironic fang as the days passed as I could not muster even a single prize. My hopes sank to the level of a dirty ashtray. Did a work out to clean my mind and body. Went to the coffee shop and had three glasses of coffee. Smoked a lot of cigarettes. The irony of the situation was my own family running a school turned their backs on me in spite of the promise that I will return the money by Western Union. I have no friends to bail me out. Spent some time reading Sartre’s Being and Nothingness. Actually I am planning to do a critical analysis on his magnum opus. My reading of Jean Paul Sartre has turned me into a profound atheist. Why should I yield myself to Christ? Am I just a lump of clay for the maker? If I am then where is my freedom? Isn’t the story of Eden an allegory? I can sympathize with the Jews as to why they didn’t become anthropocentric towards Christ. Jewish religion is paradoxical with Jehovah and the coming of a Messiah. One has to be mad to believe that a person called himself as the Son of God or one has to fully submit to the infinite space of faith. Sartre begins his discourse by the premise of consciousness. But what is consciousness? What gave it an ontological structure? What makes me not tolerate incest, pedophilia and murder? Sartre gives scant respect for morals because the maker’s choice is the maker’s responsibility. Yes I appreciate Sartre’s treatment of Nausea. Angst is real! Christ are you listening? I am little perturbed that existentialism promotes a chaotic anarchy. Reading Philosophy soothes the mind as a Gregorian chant. I have read only 56 pages and I have to cover 691. But I ask Sartre where will society head to if conscience does not exist? What is conscience? Is it a figment of imagination? Sartre due to you, I have lost my Christian faith as you said that reliance on the supernatural is a denial of responsibility and bad faith. I have decided to stop reading astrology. But where am I heading? Am I going to a no man’s land? I am also reading the Bible, wanting to disprove the existence of God. Read a little from the gospel of Mathew. Why was Christ so critical of the Pharisees? I marveled at the centurion’s faith. While reading the planting of the seed on good ground, Van Gogh’s painting the Sower came into my mind? Why does Christ speak in parables? I remember the woman who had an issue of blood who touched the garment of Christ. What child like faith is that? Though I am angry with Christ, I become sympathetic when I read the Bible. I am still puzzled by the doctrine of the trinity. Where was it when Christ was born if he is divine? Wasn’t Christ divine before his baptism? Why had the Holy Spirit to enter him? Mary I have blasphemed you, I feel truly sorry. The more I read the Bible, the more of a puzzle it becomes.
The Bookeratti were an eminent panel of Judges given the authoritarian power of censoring a book. Though each of their views was differing, they were unanimous in giving their verdict: ‘The Book is banned from the Country Democrazy’. Let’s look at how they determined their verdict.
The Book condemns the marriage of the Mr. XXX to a 9 year old. Shame! The book ridicules Mr. XXX with pedophilia.
The book takes a jibe at how a saint can attain salvation while sitting under a tree.
The book accuses a saint of winning freedom with non violence. The book accuses the saint of psychological and moral violence.
The Book promotes adultery, fornication and sodomy.
The Book puns the mythological gods and goddesses and blasphemies them with semantic virulence.
The book does not fear death or eternity.
The book calls eating beef as sacred.
The Book calls eating of pork as spiritual.
The Book exorcises Jihad as a blasphemy of democracy.
The Book criticizes N country for slamming missiles close to democracies.
The book proclaims that weed should be made freely available.
The Book prophecies Sexianity as a religion.
The book is a labyrinth of undecipherable riddles.
My mind wavers between the depths of pessimism and the heights of optimism.
Libido! I need to be gratified in excess.
Consciousness is mechanical, physical and more important ontological.
I can celebrate failures on the rocks.
Fornication and adultery are virtues.
Thank God all of the Indian flag is not Saffron. BJP are you listening?
I hate all astrologers, clairvoyants and psychics; they bring out the worst in you.
Conscience is death of the body.
Kill Freud and celebrate Derrida.
Conscience is death of the body
The British would have never left India if they did not become fed up of it.
Economy, you have opened the doors of the libido.
Shamanism is a dick with blisters.
Conniving charm do not manipulate my body.
I am fed of life. I don’t suicide but read Philosophy.
Time cannot coerce an orgasm.