My Brain Hurts

This reading is quite possibly some of the most heavy stuff I've ever had to wade through in my life, and I'm not entirely sure that if I make it to the other side, I will have even learned anything worthwhile. I mean, don't get me wrong, the discussions in class have been absolutely riveting, and reading the other blog posts has shed some light on Heidegger as well, but that's all its done. I find the things we discuss interesting, but I don't feel like they make much of a difference in the long run and I would think that Heidegger would agree. I mean, as we discussed on Tuesday, we'll never be as good of a philosopher as the common man because he isn't consciously breaking things down like we are. I feel as if Abernathy was really on to something when she said that we should all just walk around and sing. At least, the best way to live out Heidegger's philosophy is just to Be--To interact with our surroundings as they are, and as we are, and then to leave it at that.

With all of that being said, I would like to briefly discuss something that Hunter and I mentioned in class. Hunter said the phrase "what you do defines who you are", and I replied with "who you are defines what you do", and someone else added in "I think it's the way that you do it that matters", which was a nice observation, but in this context we'll ignore it.

Heidegger would have a problem with Hunter's statement because he is being defined by his function, instead of his inherent Hunter-ness. I.E. a hammer is defined by its ability to strike other objects rather than by it's inherent hammer-ness.  I, and Heidegger (I think), would disagree with this conclusion, because the inherent Hunter-ness or Hammer-ness is essential in defining an essent.

Thus, I issued my statement which essentially means that my actions are defined by my inherent Ben-ness. I.E. Because of its inherent hammer-ness, the hammer is used to bludgeon things. I do certain things because of something innate in me, not because of my environment, my upbringing or any other circumstances. Regardless of when/where/how I was raised, I would still be Ben because I have that inherent Ben-ness.  (I'm not going to make the Born This Way reference this time, I promise.)

However, this is also only part of the picture, because we can't feasibly take all of those variables out of the picture. So the only conclusion I've been able to come to is that who we are defines what we do, but what we do also defines who we are. While we make choices based on who we are, who we are has been heavily influenced by things we have experienced, chosen or witnessed in the past. Therefore who we are is essentially fluid, and can be morphed over time. However, we still have that inherent us-ness that will always be present.

I feel like I just talked in circles.

tl, dr : My brain hurts.

So what did we learn today? Nothing? That's what I thought. Tune in next week when I might actually know something about Heidegger!

P.S. I commented on Kaylie's blog "This title has nothing to do with my blog."