Poetry as the Essence of the Soul and my Shallow Mind

After slogging my way through Heidegger, a feat which I never thought I could do, I think I have finally reached what is referred to my upperclassmen friends as "the Honors Experience.". I am tired, drained, and in mental anguish. So this is enlightenment. I am still not sure if I agree with this, but what I do know is that this is tough. Heidegger is either a genius or a fool.

Last Semester Dr. Mitchell made a comment that poetry is the essence of the soul. At the time I did not agree with this. If the soul was harmoniously chaotic as the Romantics believed, then how could something so rigid and structured, albeit smooth and flowing, be what our souls really say? I wasn't sure what to think, but I was pretty sure that the statement was false, that poetry was not the essence of the soul.

Five months later, I still don't know what to think. In What are Poets For? Heidegger states that we, as physical beings, cannot completely interpret elegies and sonnets. This, Heidegger says, is because Poetry is from the soul, that we cannot understand it. Translating from the language of Being to spoken dialogue is going to lose implications from the original writing.

That being said. Heidegger told me that my thinking was very shallow, and that I'm too materialistic. How did he do this? He said I can't completely understand metaphysics.

He's right.

~Cody Martin

P.S. I commented on Hunter's My Brain Hurts

02/08/2012

I love this idea of what would things be like if one detail of my parents' lives was different and how would that effect me. We talked about this for a while in class yesterday and to be honest, it's something I think about quite a lot. We always think about why did this happen to me and if something had just been different things would be better. But in reality if things like that were to change, then we would not be the person we are today. That could be something so simple as not being quite as mature or wise, or it could be something huge like you never even being born. Several stories were mentioned that have instances of this like Lord of the Rings, Hamlet, or Esther. Dr. Olsen pointed out that none of these stories leave it at the sorrowful pitty-party that we like to throw for ourselves. There is a flip side to all of that. No one likes to deal with uncomfortable and life altering situations, but the question isn't why this had to happen to you, it should be what are you going to do no that you are there.
This is so cool to me because even though this isn't a "Bible" class, this is still a Biblical principle taught in other works. I just think it's cool how much the Bible has an influence on the world and the world doesn't even know it.

Commented on Tori's post

Hot & Cold

I am completely aware that Heidegger wants to avoid religion altogether, but I have decided I am going to take what I like from the reading and put it into lessons I have been learning on top of all of his ranting. So, to you Heidegger: frankly, my dear, I would quote a line from Gone with the Wind.

Due to my recent obsession with my intercultural studies class, the whole notion of who I will be when I finally get to India has gone wild. So far we have read two books on cross-cultural interactions. One is about how to get yourself out of your own cultural conditioning in order to respect and respond to others’; the other book is about understanding how the cultures are different based on regions (hot and cold climate behaviors, if you will).

To give you my bullet point Abernathy quotes from my notes on Tuesday’s class:
-- “He doesn’t want us to think like Descartes with “I think, therefore I am” because that says that what we think is all there is.”
-- “He wants us to think in terms of care, not compassion, but engagement.”
-- “There is a tension of who/what/how you are, of whether you would/would not do if you were/were not these things.”
The question I wrote to myself at the end of the class was, “You are a part of the scheme, but would ou still be you without the scheme?”

I know I am a far miss on all of this, but I started thinking about Sarah Lanier’s Foreign to Familiar as a result. In chapter seven, Lanier discusses a Korean friend who came to America who learned to culturally change who she was in each crowd. When she was around Westerners (Americans) she was that version of her; when Koreans were around, she switched back to that cultural condition. Lanier applauds this because she bridged the culture gap between Americans and Koreans in their work environment. While the Korean woman never became a Westerner herself, she ultimately learned how to relate to us. All of that is fine and wonderful, and I applaud the woman for bridging that gap, but I cannot help but wonder who her authentic self is in the midst of all this culture. If the concept of self is a social construction, then who really is this Korean woman underneath that social construction of dual roles?

I know the intended meaning behind the first bullet point statement, but I took it a different direction. If I think, and therefore I am, and I measure my existence by what I think and what I know, then Heidegger is right. That sort of thinking is wrong. What I think is not at all applicable in India a vast majority of the time.

As far as the second bullet and thinking in terms of engagement, there are multiple meanings for that word. But to be engaged in something is for it to have your attention and for your attention to be held there. When I get to India, my immediate response is not going to be care in terms of compassion. My initial reaction must be care in terms of engagement. To maintain my essent, I must understand the hows and whys of the Indians I encounter based on their own social constructions. I must maintain my essent outside of my cultural conditioning. It goes beyond being a bridge, it goes into being authentic, decentered self regardless of cultural conditioning or cultural placement.

COMMENTED ON BENJAMMIN'S

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."

What if, what if, what if...

On Tuesday we touched on the authentic self and the inauthentic self and whether or not a person would still have the same Being if they were born in a different time or place. What if instead of being raised in an American Christian home, they were born in China and taught that Christianity was illegal? What if that was all they knew? Would the Being inside them long for the void left by the absence of God in their life to be filled, or would they even notice that something was missing? I think, correct me if I'm wrong, that Heidegger believes that they would feel something missing and search for something spiritual even if it wasn't THE God they needed.

I apologize for the short blog, I accidentally deleted it the first time... :(

Being and Venture...A Flower Maybe?

I am desperately trying to wrap my mind around the relation of all the terms. If “swimming around in the head” was a witty phrase I was confident in, I think this case would serve an appropriate use. Now let’s get down to business-- notice my disclaimer: everything I’m about to say is probably wrong, so don’t take my word for it. Maybe, if I’m lucky, a small glimmer of truth will be found in my struggle.

From my understanding, the Being of being is not God, as some might automatically think, it is rather a center, of sorts. Being is the abstract part of beings that is central to them. Venture is similar to what people call the essence of life or destiny. It is described as a flinging, a daring. Accordingly, when you are being you are venturing. This is the relation between venturing and being. Venture draws being into itself. Life (destiny) draws life (existence) into itself. Picture it as a flower with petals. The petals are the circles that represent being, whereas the venture is the center part of the flower, drawing all of its petals to the center. Unfortunately that’s all I can say right now. I’m working out some more in my mind but I couldn’t possibly explain it in writing. Maybe I’ll save it for the paper or for the next blog. Yay! Goodnight all!

P.S. I commented on Alternate Heidegger, Megan's Post

The difference between me and my dog

In his “What are poets for?”, Heidegger explains the fundamental differences between the man and “other beings”

First, Heideggar makes a distinction which us in the 21^st century know very well - The idea that man has a will, whereas plants and animals do not.

But, Heideggar does bring up some very new and interesting points as well. Whereas plants and animals are simply “in” nature, man is “with” nature. Man places himself over nature and objectifies everything. There is nothing that man does not categorize, or name as an object including “the open.” However, It does not seem that Heidegger views this characteristic of man as superior. He talks of how man’s nature with much negative language, for instance he speaks of man “forcing everything under its dominion.” Moreover, he speaks of how out of man’s nature, arises great problems. For, man’s self-assertion makes it where he is constantly aware of the possibility of he himself becoming simply an object like everything else around him.

“He himself and his things are thereby exposed to the growing danger of turning into mere material and into a function of objectification”

I do understand that Heideggar is presenting a tension between the self consciousness of man and the problems that this creates. But on a different note, I am confused as to why Heideggar is writing this particular selection. It seems to be written like a lecture, but a lecture for what? What is he reacting to/ against? Also, he is providing a lengthy analysis of poetry from a few select authors, is he doing this to “teach” the poetry, or is he simply using the poetry and the ideas that it evokes as a platform/ vector for the viewpoint that he is presenting? A little bit of background would bring a lot of clarity.

I commented on Ajackson's "Jabberwocky"

This title has nothing to do with my post.

Okay let me just start with this… I find it borderline irritating to have to question my own existence. It’s incredibly weird first off, but it’s sort of creepy. The reason it is creepy because having to question reality makes me think of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies that I watched very recently and it’s a little frightening. With that said I’d like to move on from that and just share what I found interesting about Tuesdays class, because Lord knows I couldn’t explain it. I guess it was interesting to think about if I didn’t exist but had a twin that did whether or not there would be something missing. That led to discussing that there would be a missing authenticity of you because you are not interchangeable parts. I think that this whole idea of an authentic self is sort of a more intelligent and maybe eloquent way of saying that every person is unique. We’re taught that from the moment we’re born, and that’s essentially what the authentic self is. So really I’ve just been thinking about it and it’s just got my wheels turning, pardon the cliché, concerning the authentic self.
I feel like this is more of a ramble but Heidegger is the most confusing thing I’ve read in my entire life.
P.S commented on Kelsey Parish’s post

10:04

In our reading for tomorrow Heidegger writes: “The divine radiance has become extinguished in the world’s history.”So if I am understanding this correctly, God has just left us all of fend for ourselves and the God that we Christians believe in is just a default that doesn’t actually exist. Then he goes on to say that because no god exists except for some default that works for every nation, a time in which what humans base our lives on (our ground) is about to fail us. This is horrifying to me. I feels like stories of Zombie Appocolypes and the end of the world are consuming society today, and sometimes when I think too hard about all of these theories, I honestly become afraid. What if Jesus’ second coming is actually closer than anyone believes? What if, like maybe people think, the world will soon come to an end? The thought baffles me, so I try not to think about it. The words that Heidegger writes are even more frightening, because he speaks of a destruction of the world without the salvation and hope we Christians find in Christ. If this were true I would be totally freaking out right now, but fortunately I know that I will be saved by God when the end of the world comes. However, I cry for all of those who will not be saved. I really hope that I will die before God comes again, or that he takes me before I have to witness the suffering of all those who didn’t believe in God.

-Susan

P.S. I commented on Kelsey Parish's blog

Is something something or is it really nothing?

In reading Heidegger's question of why there are essents rather than nothing and thinking about the question we were asked in class of why is there chalk instead of no chalk, I was strangely reminded of DesCartes'. When we were asked this question in class, the discussion that came up was more or less of whether or not we can say with absolute certainty that there is, in fact, chalk. In DesCartes' first meditation, he talks about how that which he accepts as the highest truth and certainty, he gathers from his senses. He then goes on to say how he is inherently driven to doubt those observations because his senses have led him wrong before. In the same way, as we strive to simplify, we look to assert with absolute certainty that there is chalk. "I can see the chalk on the table. I can touch it and feel it. Without a doubt, that piece of chalk exists."

However, I think DesCartes' would agree with Heidegger when he pursues the "essence of the essent." He asks what exactly makes the essent an essent rather than nothing. We say that the chalk does exist because we can see it and touch it and seemingly confirm the fact that it is there. I would assert then, that according to Descartes' and Heidegger, the only absolute truth in this situation is the fact that we perceive the chalk to be existent, but because of perception itself, that becomes subjective in nature. It is safe to say that each and every person looking at the chalk has a unique perception of it, and if that is true, then the chalk cannot actually have a concrete form, e.g. concrete existence. Unless I am just completely off the mark, I think this is a crucial idea present in Heidegger's writing. An essent is an essent rather than nothing because it is percieved as such, but at the same time, that fact does not guarantee any absolute existence.

Hope that makes sense. Sorry for totally rambling.

p.s. I commented on Jabberwocky

I Am Me

I had two concepts that really jumped out at me during our discussion. The first was about my existence. I know I exist. I find it hard to question my existence. I know that I am a living, breathing human being. I have four parents, three siblings, tons of friends, and all of my amazing pets. I am nineteen. I live in Alabama. I exist! I cannot picture myself not being who I am because I have had nineteen years to understand who I am. I am me. It is impossible to picture if I had not existed because I know that I am still here. There is no point in trying to picture a life that never existed when I know that I do exist.
The second thing I dwelled upon was the idea of defining myself through my actions. When I was younger, I did not care how I acted at all. I got into a lot of fights and said a lot of mean things.. It did not really hit me that my actions were saying that I was an overly aggressive person to people until this young boy said that he remembered seeing me yell one time and he was terrified of me. I did a turn around and started trying to mentor the younger children of my community. They started seeing me in a completely different light. I learned that sometimes our actions tend to define us even if that is not who we truly are. I was not a very aggressive person but my temper said otherwise. The actions of the other person swinging first were not seen. Instead my actions of punching the girl in the face were seen. We really need to come to an understanding that our actions can paint a completely different picture of ourselves.

P.S. I commented on Joy's post.

Back into the Maelstrom

I feel like Heidegger has flung us into a maelstrom of confusion. Who are we and how are we here and how do we know we are here? All of these seem like questions that are swirling around in the circle of the vortex…doing nothing but destroying things (like sanity). The only conclusion I have drawn is by comparing Heidegger to Descartes (which may be a major breach of philosophical ethics, but hey- this is postmodernism- what are rules?). It seems like Heidegger is saying that your existence comes from genetics and your being/personality comes from social construction. Therefore, to find the authentic self you have to break down the social construction in which you are immersed. The preconceived notions of reality and labels given by culture have to be stripped away. Then, from the foundation of Being, from the edge of the abyss of nothingness, you can begin to rebuild on the true nature of who you know yourself to be. In this way, the authentic self is realized. The only way the self can be realized is through the parameters of language, because that is the only way we have of measuring reality. So, those are my thoughts, and I’m aware that I still sound a bit confused. Oh! I think I just saw the wicked witch of the west fly by on her broomstick! We are not in Kansas anymore, Toto! (random comment, please excuse me- we are in a maelstrom/tornado)
P.S. Joy This Defines vs That Defines

Dunkelheit

"This is why the poet in the time of the world's night utters the holy. This is why, in Hölderlin's language, the world's night is the holy night."

Heidegger here is stating the need for a poet in the times of destitution. They break away from the objective molds of human logic and trace spiritual matters in their true form. The poet, then, flourishes from the decay and loss of the world.

This is a definite possibility. The idea of divinity found when at the darkest of times is found in poems, as he mentions, but also in songs of worship. "O Holy Night" gives the line "Long lay the world in sin and error pinning." As the song progresses, Christ comes back and redeems. In Scripture, too, Romans 5:20 speaks of grace abounding even more when sin increases.

The poet serves as a beacon of hope by becoming an intercession for the people when they've become numbed by the growing cake of mundaneness they have built from hyper-analyzation.

Ad augusta per angusta,

Will Drake

P.S. Commented on Autumn's Jabberwocky

First Exposure

Last Thursday was my first exposure to Martin Heidegger. I had heard of Aristotle, Sartre and Nietzsche- all of whom worked in the realm of metaphysics- but not Heidegger. Generally, I like to know something of the people I read, so I did some digging around for biographical facts concerning the philosopher.

In 1889, Martin was born in Messkirch, Germany. His interest in philosophy was fostered in his youth, while he was preparing for the Catholic priesthood. In 1919, he parted with Catholicism and began lecturing on phenomenology at the University of Freiburg, where he met and married one of his students, Thea Elfride Petri.

Heidegger was elected rector of the university in 1933, and in the same year, he joined Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers’ (or "Nazi") Party. It was during World War II that he gave the lectures found in his Introduction to Metaphysics, which included "The Fundamental Question of Metaphysics."

After the war, he was barred from teaching in Germany, due to his association with the Nazis. For the rest of his life, he wrote books on the essence of being and criticized modern philosophy for losing sight of of the fundamental question: "Why are there essents rather than nothings?" He died in May 1976 and was buried in his hometown.

Hopefully, I have given the bloggers some biographical perspective that allows them to see the work and philosophy of Heidegger in another view, other than our 21^st century one, which often ignores historical context, and our evangelical Christian one, which often fails to wrestle with philosophers on their own terms.

Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)

Source(s) Used:  Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship.

Commented on Jamie Kilpatrick's "Baffled."

Alternate Heidegger

Heidegger talks about the Authentic Self, which he believes is unique to every person. In class, Abernathy tried to explain how that worked. She used the example of having never been born, but someone else was born in our place that was like us in every way, but not us at the same time. The first thought that popped into my head was, Alternate Universe.

A lot of television shows I enjoy incorporate alternate universes into their storylines. Doctor Who is a prime example of this. In one episode the Doctor and his companions end up falling into an alternate universe where they find people they know, but they aren’t exactly the same. It seems that alternate universes, while maybe not exactly what Heidegger was talking about, fit into the schema he was trying to present.

I could be wrong about all of this, I’ve been stuck in bed all day with a bad back and I feel like I’m going a little crazy. But at the same time, I think I might be on to something.

Until next time

~Meghan

P.S. – I commented on Jamie’s post, Baffled

Jabberwocky

So I’ve been reading my Heidegger stuff and working on my paper when I was suddenly like, “Oh my goodness this doesn’t make a lick of sense!” (Okay, maybe not suddenly, but you get the idea.) I felt like the Tootsie Pop boy I drew in my cartoon. I couldn’t figure out much of what Heidegger was saying and was frustrated, but then I had a thought. What if that was how Herr Heidegger wanted his listeners to respond? I don’t mean he wanted us to get upset and have our brains overload, but he simply sough to make us think. Heidegger is standing in a room full of students, or colleagues, or whatever and he tosses an infinite question “Why are there essents rather than nothing” in the midst of them. The effect was probably the same as it was in our class-- it got our minds turning. Heidegger twists and turns and gets us all tangled up trying to discover meaning in his philosophy and whatnot, but really he has fulfilled the very definition he gave to philosophy. It is not in the nature of philosophy to give answers which would simplify and therefore lose the meaning. It is the nature of philosophy to question and make things much more difficult. Mission accomplished Herr Heidegger.


P.S.: i commented on Mallory Searcy's post

Sitting by Dr. Talmage has made Heidegger bearable. At least in class. Wading in the reading is another thing.

The thing that bothers me about this stuff is that my brain wants to categorize it as religion. I know he says he's trying to steer away from religion, but it's almost as if he's really trying to go above religion. At least in my opinion, you can't go above religion- you just find more religion.

To speak of our "being" is not a new thing to speak of- he's right that the poets know about it. But is it also possible that everyone knows about it. It is in fact, the thing everyone can grasp rather than the parts. After all, I will never be smart enough to understand the Essent of iphone- not all of its wires and lights and metal. but i do understand its being. In fact, I am apart of the process that gives it being. I can't tell you what an iphone IS but I can tell you why it is. I can tell you its purpose and it's not possible for me to think of all its fine machinery and text someone at the same time.

And though I think Heidegger is right in that he understands this idea of purpose, I think he corners himself when he attempts to do this without religion. Existentialism, as far as I am understanding it, seems to be the most depressing system of beliefs I know. It seems that once you have outlined Being, will, purpose and even a "turning" back to the light, if you ignore religion you are left to yourself to find out how and what this means. That is where I see Heidegger stop, right before the every day man would turn to God. He sees a complicated and wonderful humanity and insists than neither Science nor God will give him a "why".

Maybe I don't understand this stuff at all. If someone else does, please explain it?

I commented on Pienso que entiendo... o quisas Heideggar habla una lingua diferente.

Pienso que entiendo... o quisas Heideggar habla una lingua diferente.

The thought that we have a paper on Mr. H almost makes me cry... the fact that it's only like two pages makes it a little better. Okay... first of all- Dr. M posed the question: "Why do we need to know this stuff?" Also, H's question of "Why are there essence instead of nothing?" is a hard one for me because it seems rather post modern and Rachel know's what I think about post modernism... As Dr. Olsen would say "Maybe we can't understand it because there is nothing to understand.'

I am in no way saying that this is meaningless information. This is a step towards truth. It is good stuff... (I think) I just don't know that any of us are getting it though. Further more, when one comes to a conclusion we tend to answer with "Maybe... or... that's a good way to put it..." but so far... we are continuing to voice our opinions and be a confused mess when in reality the only way to sort everything out is to state what we know. What bits of truth have we gleaned from this reading? The hammer and nail analogy was a good one. I am not sure I can give the explanation justice as Dr. Abernathy, but in essence it is that we are not aware of every detail of an action or an object. We see a chair, not shaped wood covered in fabric.

What other truths do we know from the reading? Post them as comments so that we can help each other get organized, know why, and... hopefully write a coherent paper!

Commented on Joy's

Baffled

Honestly, I'm almost clueless when it comes to Heidegger. I just don't get it. And then, after the discussion in class yesterday, I'm even more confused. So, who are we, really? Are we who we are because it is instilled in us from the moment we come into existence, or are we only what our society makes us? If I had been born in Africa, and raised in an orphanage, personality wise, would I be anything like the person I am today? Be it right or wrong, the only conclusion I can make goes back to God. He created me. Everything about me, including my personality. Not only that, he placed me in the exact environment he wanted me in. Having me born in Africa wasn't part of His plan.

P.S. Commented on Joy's "This Defines vs. That Defines"

Things that stuck out to Me

I want to go back to the discussion about "Thrown/Flung" into a particular space. In class on tuesday we talked about the existence of a twin if the other twin was never born. For example, Joy and her sister Judy. Would Judy's existence be known by someone if they did not know Judy had existence. I called this the "Joy-Judy Twin Scenario." If I was not born to my parents but my sister was would my existence even be missed? This goes hand in hand with "Dais Sein"-- Being There. I would say no because if i was never there than how can I be missed? I was never THERE so that is not possible.
    Another thing that caught my attention in reading Heideger (dont know if i spelled that right) was the idea that who you are defines what you do. Or is it what you do defines who you are? At first I found this concept to be confusing. If what i do defines who I am then is that not the same as who you are defines what you do? I thought about this for awhile and began to gain understanding. Just as Joy wrote in her blog, If you are a follower of Jesus Christ then your actions will portray that. Would it not? The same is true for a person who one saw going for a run. They would assume that person who was running is a runner. So, yes, i agree that this is true.

p.s i commented on Joy's post

WHYdegger (see what I did there?)

"We fall in line, we live the lie. (Give up, give up, and feed the machine.
It grows inside, nowhere to hide. (Wake up, wake up, and kill the machine."
-Red, Feed the Machine

For one thing, in my honest opinion, metaphysics is really interesting and exciting to study, particularly when it comes to Martin Heidegger. The question of why there are essents rather than nothing may seem like a ridiculous question at first, but the more and more you look into it, the deeper it becomes. Soon, you're dealing with Platonism, Existentialism, and all different sort of ideas. By the end of the first chapter, you're dropped on the front lines of a war between machinerey and the sukis that you didn't even know existed. Yes, it is extremely confusing, but I believe that, for those who are willing and keep an open mind (dangerous as that may be) will find some very worthy material. What's funny is that, at the end of class yesterday, I believe it was Dr. Talmage who posed the question: "Why are we studying this? Why should we care about metaphysics at all? How can this stuff really apply to our lives?" Thankfully, that is the perfect question to ask.

It is extremely important that essays like the ones we have read are studied because, well, look what happens when they aren't! Look at the members of this world that don't care about poetry, that don't care about the deeper questions in life, that will never leave the front door of their own mind. They go through life pursuing the next big thing, chasing dreams and money and whatever comes to mind, and only look at the here and now of this life as to how it benefits them directly at that time. You know who these people are, and you know that we as a society and a culture are largely disinterested with anything that does not involve personal success, world peace, or simplicity. That's why things like poetry, philosophy, and the humanities in general have fallen by the wayside, and look at the kind of people this culture creates as a result. For anyone who remembers Nietzsche's predictions about the Last Man, who no longer cares about asking questions and finding meaning in life, who would simply crash his life on the rocks because it's how he feels at the time, look him in the eyes and tell him he's wrong.

This is exactly what Heidegger warned about in the end of this chapter-the machine men. He sees industrialization not just in the physical world but in the metaphysical world, i.e. mankind as a whole. In our search for individuality and freedom we are in fact enslaving ourselves to trends, science, intelligence, and anything other that which truly frees us-the question of what it means to be. Despite the fact that Heidegger says to keep religion out metaphysics, no theologian can deny that a life simply lived looking at his shoes and hands without asking questions in a life that is dead. One must be alive in the Spirit, which one must be aware that there is more to life than just the day and awake to the fact this life in which we live will enslave us if we let it, and we as Christians cannot allow ourselves to let that happen. We can no longer accept apathy nor can we keep looking towards statistics and science as what defines us as people nor can we let ourselves be defined by Descartes. "Why are there essents rather than nothing?" Why do we care rather than not?

If you actually made it through all of that, you have my humble thanks. Feel free to comment as you please with questions or corrections. I commented on Joy Vigneulle's This Defines VS That Defines.

This Defines VS That Defines

“Who you are defines what you do” and “what you do defines who you are”… These two points were both presented in honors class today and I have thought about them off and on throughout the day… I believe who we are ought to define what we do. If you are a follower of Jesus Christ then you ought to live your life differently then someone who does not follow Jesus Christ. If you are a white collar worker here in the states you will work different, talk different, and live different than a poor peasant in Haiti. It is who you are that dictates how you act and respond to things. However, what you do can also define you. Like Rachel was saying if you ride a bike then people will consider you to be a bike rider. If you are a follower of Jesus Christ then people will call you a Christian. If you like reading you are considered a book worm. We have all heard the saying actions speak louder than words. So saying you’re a believer is great, but if you do not live your life as a follower of Jesus Christ things will not line up, in which case what you do will define you more than who you say you are because the two are not lining up (in other words you are a hypocrite). So let what you do line up with who you say you are.

PS - Jamie

PS -