<aside> <img src="/icons/dialogue_purple.svg" alt="/icons/dialogue_purple.svg" width="40px" /> Jason

What is the state of technicity? Many people are now in jobs lacking any personal fullfilment, and turn to political resentment as a way forward. Is technicity the main problem?

</aside>

<aside> <img src="/icons/dialogue_purple.svg" alt="/icons/dialogue_purple.svg" width="40px" /> Madeline

  1. Is Derrida's "trace" the Others (One, the They) of our embedded-in-humans world?
  2. It seems Heidegger is saying, Kant is using present-at-hand to describe HOW we experience all this; Heidegger is saying, WHAT IS IT to experience all this? Or, how do we talk about basic beingness (Dasein) that is even more basic?
  3. The past that we carry around with/in us, or are trailing behind us - does that contain all the possibilities we chose, or does it also contain all of those plus all the ones we didn't choose? Hence creating even more anxiety, since we've already seen possibilities continually cut off? </aside>

<aside> <img src="/icons/dialogue_purple.svg" alt="/icons/dialogue_purple.svg" width="40px" /> Gerry

Upon what are Heidegger's assertions grounded?

Philosophy, generally, grounds itself in logical and/or empirical premises. Many of Kant's assertions, for example, are grounded in premises he believes everyone must acknowledge upon reflection, e.g., the law of contradiction, the fact that we all experience matter in the same way as having the property of repulsion, that we all have a fundamental understanding of duty, whether or not we adhere to it, etc. We accept these grounds based on definition, based on common experience, or because to deny them results in logical contradiction. We might then say that Kant's assertions are grounded in that which must be universally, or categorically, accepted.

So my question--on what are Heidegger's assertions grounded? On the law of contradiction? on repeatable, objective, empirical evidence? On the universality of our inner subjective experience? Heidegger and the continental philosophers have often been accused of being irrational and relativist. How does Heidegger get around that?

</aside>

<aside> <img src="/icons/dialogue_purple.svg" alt="/icons/dialogue_purple.svg" width="40px" /> Joe

What precisely means the authentic self? Is the self just awareness and engagement of self possibilities and taking responsibility for doing and conception?

</aside>

<aside> <img src="/icons/dialogue_purple.svg" alt="/icons/dialogue_purple.svg" width="40px" /> Nicole

In what concrete ways does Heideggerian authenticity relate to human potential and the Great Work?

Is Dasein the conscious subject, or does it include also the unconscious subject?

</aside>

<aside> <img src="/icons/dialogue_purple.svg" alt="/icons/dialogue_purple.svg" width="40px" /> Fred

For H, we start in Thrownness. H doesn't have much to say about ethics. The starting point for Levinas is ethics. In this respect, how does one get from H to Levinas?

</aside>

<aside> <img src="/icons/dialogue_purple.svg" alt="/icons/dialogue_purple.svg" width="40px" /> Ella

Interested in the differences in Heidegger's event and A. N. Whitehead's concrete event (a coming into becoming, as WH says all is becoming). Also both speak of potentialities. For Whitehead, there is a introjection, taking in or rejection of other entities, based on one's universal aim toward creativity and complexity. Which advances the movement in relationships that enhance one's creativity and complexity in the universe which advances complexity in the universe.

</aside>