This question does not seem like one that I can ask. I am completely frustrated by it. I follow his argument thus far (I'm only on page 31 right now), but I'm faced with a sense of apathy towards it. As he said, any answer that we could come up with is inconsequential to the actual existence of things. No answer could change anything. Perhaps it is because I do not have this sort of will to know as he defines it. In philosophy we always talked about questioning things and how questions without answers can leave us better off. Speaking honestly, I don't really know how asking this question could leave us better off. Perhaps that's what is so scary about this age to me sometimes--that a person could get to the point where they honestly, willfully ask this question. What does it say about they world that surrounds them?
commented on Mallory's
Maybe it is always the questioning that is most important in these things. I think Heidegger spends a lot of time on how we use words and the problem of questioning "nothing" to emphasize the importance of merely questioning at all. There may not be an answer, but it takes me back to Descartes a little bit. Maybe the point of questioning why things are is simply a reminder that we are. I don't know that I have asked WHY things are very seriously before, but I have question HOW they could be. This questioning usually results from my dwelling on the idea of nothingness too long, which sort of defeats Heidegger in a way. Nevertheless, it overwhelms me and compels my questioning. I find rest in my ability to question WHY or HOW at all.
ReplyDelete