"is there a there, there? " (Constructivism)

[Dreamwoven]

I can certainly relate to that, though I have not read Heidegger. It is time I did so! Perhaps someone on LitNet has and can take up your point? I agree we are not the crown of creation in terms of evolution. Zen-buddhism is also something to look more closely at. It is for a me a question of reading some of this material.

[YesNo]

While he himself is stating that we should dive straight back into to Greek Etymology to "RESET" ourselves and from there follow a new path to the center of the WOODS in which positivistic scientists are currently lost in.

I think the journey into the woods metaphor is backward.

What happens is one day we realize that we are in the center of the woods. The sun is hidden. It is dark. We begin looking for a way out where things are clear and the day is bright.

Part of the problem is that this initial realization contains cultural assumptions that are not questioned. This keeps us circling in the woods.

[Duikboot]

No, I truly think that Heidegger really had no ****ing clue as to what he was writing about. This book of his is presented as if it is the answer to the human question: what is the meaning of being? And the this very book does not answer it. It only deepens the mystery. Where 6 million jews suddenly disappeared, this bloke tells us to reinvent greek mother****a's, dead and gone 6 million years...in time and being. My alarm clock is telling me every day to wake the **** up...and every time I think of Hei Degger....Heil Degger..but he is an *******. Wrong is he.

[YesNo]

If one separates out his anti-semitism and only considers "Being and Time", is there anything there of value? I don't know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger

[Francis92]

Prehistoric survival instincts, because it was suitable and adaptive in their social needs. Human construct, human logic.

[Francis92]

This rather obscure sentence [is there a there, there?], paraphrased or not, somehow pops up quite often in the stuff I read. And it is bugging me. Is it merely a rhetorical question that gauges the human ontology like: "is there reality outside of the Homo Sapiens brains?". I am not sure what to think of it so can you help me in knowing what it truly means? For the latter to be untrue it would mean that when all humans died on earth they would leave nothing behind....no animals, no mountains, no nothing...right...something I refuse to believe to be true if that turns out to be the answer, for why would the earth stop to exist when all humans died suddenly, instantly? Zenith of arrogance, the weak or strong anthropic "solipsistic" principle? Does the sentence mean this very thing? That there may be a there behind Plato's shadows on the cave? And thus not merely an existentialist play on words grammatically?

Please educate me, I'm stuck here.

Humans impress themselves by evaluation in literature, and people rely mostly on history for their evaluation, the knowledge of constructivism is useless if you try understanding things by exploring ideas, people always discuss and question but'll it roots into science, and not a figurative concept or construct. What arouses you make your argumentation fail to understand false and truth in homosapien social depravity and deprived mentality.

[Dreamwoven]

Science is, of core, itself a construction. In questions involving dinosaurs and pre-history in general, science can put blinkers on us. So Francis 92, your last sentence about "social depravity and deprived mentality" is also true.