Heidegger on time and being - compared to Buddhism

 

Heidegger emphasizes  the knowledge of death  of the individual.  

That awareness can give meaning to our life - it leads us to do thing that are meaningful for us - not following the crowd. 

Not only death but also being is something we have in common with every living being. 

And that means being in a specific place - Dasein. 

As in Buddhist philosophy Heidegger mean that we interact with the surroundings. 

Being comes before thinking, but Heidegger is not into meditation. 

He is not either into scientific progress. 

It seems that he wants to fins ground for being - maybe that's why he was into Nazis, - at least for a while (not so much antisemitic as thoughts about "blut und boten" - blood and soil )

As David Deutsch means philosophy may not aim to find a common ground, or common truth, but more of criticizing old philosophy and therefore move forward in an never ending progress. 

Im sure Heidegger was interested in Buddhism, as we can see in the video below he anyway  knew a lot about Buddhism and he may have been influenced by it.


The zen master Tich Nhath Hanh reminds us not only about our own death, but also about the risk of the death of humanity. 

If the global warming goes amok it may be to hard for us to find food and so on. It has happened before in the the history oft the earth - 250 million years ago because of great volcano raptures that triggered a climate change. It is said that 95% of life in earth disappeared - but than the temperature  had gone six degrees Celsius over normal. 

In the deep Buddhist view we are all interrelated so much that we never born and will never die.

We just manifest for a while like a wave in the ocean. It may be the same with humankind, Hanh means, it may take long time but intelligent life may come back on earth again. 

We have to change our way of being, Hanh means - not consume so much, not poison our food with pesticides and the cattle with antibiotics. 

Both Heidegger and Hanh seem to have quite dark thoughts about humankind. 

Heidggeder sees science as a new and bad religion that may create human like robots.

Hanh means that we should enjoy the small things in nature, look at them and our selves as wonders. 

And of course do it in a mindful way. 

Is this something that the crowd will imply? 

Well in this corona time many people where I live spend their free time in nature. 

But its also said that big catastrophic has a value as entertainment. 

Out there there may be a view that it would be good if the number of humans on the earth may decrease a lot. But it may be that it doesn't imply the whole extinction of humankind. 

Many of us are not aware of that risk, even if it may be small.

But what about time?

Is there a time outside of our perceptions? 

Heidegger meant that everything is connected to our perceptions. We cannot reach reality per se. 

But time and death was a reality for him.

Though modern physicists,  like Einstein, are not so sure. Are time really like a stream, going forward. 

As I mentioned, deep Buddhism, sees death at an end of the body, but your deeds (karma) manifests not only in your DNA, but also in the people you influence and in what memes you hand over to the next generation. As you never had a self that independent, but was interacting, the interactions goes on after your funeral.

Death as a kind of illusion - but what about time?

Modern physicists,  like Einstein, are not so sure. Are time really like a stream, going forward? Time is the clock, said Einstein - I guess he meant - it's man made.

Or is time just in our heads to orientate ourselves in this world - "this happened because of that" .

I dont think neither Heidegger nor Thich Nhath Hanh had that in mind... 

And for sure - we need the vision of an I and of time to be here. 

But again - is it possible to feel a connection to the whole universe? 

Lets leave it there for now. 

The Interview of Heidegger made by a  curious Thai  Buddhist monk (Heidegger does not seem to have a mutual interest in what the Buddhist have to say...)









 

 











Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cora Diamond on eating animals - with the help of Wittgenstein´s ideas

Image
Cora Diamond is a new name for me, even if she has worked as a professor in Philosophy in the states for a long time and is still  teaching at the university of Virginia, even she is over 80 years old. She has written a lot about Wittgenstein and that has helped her to express her view of the topic. Although she, like Wittgenstein,  has lived in a hut in Norway - and actually brought Tractatus with hes - she seems to be different and for sure more glad than W. Anyways, its W: s writings that interests her and especially his critics of metaphysics and ethics in philosophy. As it is said in Tractacus  : " Whereof one  cannot speak , thereof one must be silent." And of ethics philosophy should not speak - why? Is it like in Buddhism - its better to sit in silence and let know yourself, than to speculate about what will happen when we die? But for sure there ethical guidelines in Buddhism,  but the behaviors is often named skilful, not good (or bad). Another
Read more

I think, therefore I am NOT

Image
So Descartes was wrong. He said that he could doubt everything about himself except that he was thinking. That proved that he existed. The word "I" is the central point here. What does it mean? Perhaps we are sure that we know the answer. Is it the thoughts? In that case - where are you when you aren't thinking? Is it your job, your title? In that case - what happens if you loose your job or change job? Is it your house, your nation? Under my course to be a mindfulness instructor, the teacher, Ola Schenström, made us ask to each other; "Who are you?" After each answer the question was repeated by the questioner.We soon discovered that there were no end to the answers - or maybe an adequate end could be; "I don't know."Or maybe; "It seems I have no essence." Other thinkers have come to the same conclusions; Buddha, Sartre and more recently Damasio and Parfit. Sartre, for instance, has said that we are the sum of our actions. We ha
Read more

Wittgenstein and Buddha -buddies?

Image
Ludwig Wittgenstein, the famous philosopher, reflected in the posthumously published  book "Philosophical Investigations" about the picture above; Is it a hare or duck?  He meant that we make, or must make, a statement what it is. And I suppose he meant that we often or always has to interpret the world around us. But two different interpretations can both be right! Language and thoughts controls what we see.....   You can compare with the picture of a glass. Half empty or half empty?  Who decides? Yes, it's you... And whatever you say is right.  But you can be aware of what you think. That can say more of yourself than of the glass....  You can be aware of that you always do interpretations of things that happens.  If you have a pessimistic or a naive point of view, you can be aware of the view and your statements.  Buddha and Wittgenstein were both aware of that different persons uses different perspectives.  But Buddha spoke about the "right 
Read more