My second favorite thing is reflection.
So to consider an authentic self that lacks
all semblance of reflection is hard for me to do. And to accept that a human
being without consciousness is experiencing an ideal human existence -- even
harder. Right now, I’m sitting on a park
bench under a Southern Live Oak tree trying to translate my feelings into words
in order to submit my blog post. I am
content.
I am
conscious of the construction around
me, I am conscious that the bench I’m
sitting on has bird poop on one side, I am conscious
that the temperature is starting to increase and I may have to go inside
soon to be comfortable. And I think that
if I wasn't, I wouldn't be as happy. I
like having the ability to, in my mind, freeze my surroundings, and as they say take time to smell the roses.
Derrick said in the class discussion that he thought
Heidegger hadn't necessarily intended the term “inauthentic” to carry negative
connotations, and “authentic” with positive ones. Maybe not, but when reading
it, I definitely added them. If I look at it in that light, then I can
appreciate an individual’s ability to transition between the two.
If Heidegger hadn't intended one existence
to be better than the other but I (an average reader) found one. Then I can
further understand why he refused to use words to avoid the baggage that comes
with them.
I definitely agree with what Derrick said in class. Being and Time is a metaphysical work and Heidegger wasn't interested or concerned with ethics. I don't think there is a distinction to be made of good/bad but the authentic path is preferred.
ReplyDelete