Talk:Being in itself

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Continental / Contemporary Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics
	Continental philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 18 to Apr 24 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

The following is an archived debate.Please do not modify it.

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 18 to Apr 24 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

Nothing there. RickK 20:50, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Although this is a substub right now, it is an important philosophical topic. Presumably the original author is planning to expand. Give him/her a chance. If not expanded by end of VfD period, then delete. Bkonrad | Talk 21:01, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I expanded it a bit. It's still a stub, but at least it's a semi-useful stub now. There's still a lot to be done in terms of distinguishing it from Dasein, but seeing as Dasein doesn't even have an entry right now, that's probably a future task. Regardless, it's a work in progress, and an important one. Keep. Snowspinner 21:17, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep in its current form - looks promising. Pteron 04:29, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ack! Give it a chance! It was listed on vfd the same day I started the article! Anyhow, yeah, it can be distinguished from Daesin because being-in-itself is a term that Sartre develops in his own direction. Thanks for the added text, btw. Keep. -Seth Mahoney 17:06, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely keep. --Michael Snow 03:11, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep, expand. It's an important concept in the thought of an important (and difficult) philosopher. -- Jmabel 08:44, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to being Bensaccount 18:58, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Its not the same as being, and its a big enough topic to warrant its own article, really. -Seth Mahoney 20:32, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  - I agree, and by extension the lack of a Being for itself article feels slightly inconsistent. -Yog Sothoth! 17:00, 11 Apr 2006 (GMT)

End discussion

The above is an archived discussion Please do not modify it.

Sources[edit]

There should be a source for the claim that Heidegger's alleged anti-semitism was rooted in his belief that jews were not whole Daseins. There is much scholarship on the issue of Heidegger's links to the Nazi party and whether or not he was truly anti-semitic. The wording damages the NPOV of this page.--Sam 04:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being-for-itself[edit]

Can't understand why the being-for-itself article was deleted. Can't make sense of that. Anyway I've added in some basics about Sartrean Being-in-itself. Without getting over the top with terminology. I'll grammaticalise it a bit tomorrow. Sludgehaichoi 22:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is completely wrong. Hegel (nineteenth century) develops the concept of "being-in-itself (Ansichsein)." Someone needs to rewrite this altogether, or the article needs to be discarded, and readers can go to philosophers' pages, where their subjects are already elaborated.

Agree that with no mention of Hegel the article as it stands is fatally inadequate. Also, the Heidegger section is inaccurate. Heidegger's Being is not the same thing as being-for-itself as that term was and is used in philosophy, and Heidegger does not claim that it is. JohnMason (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]