Put it in a cautiously succinct way, “Being” is contextualization, “to be a thing” is to be contextually given, and “to be a human” is to be contextually-receptive to this givenness.

This is such great stuff so glad these lectures are posted thanks man. Glad you were part of all this

😂 excellent summary. That's awesome

The conception that the world is composed of “things” was superseded in sensible philosophy in the 19th century. “… The great basic thought that the world is not to be comprehended as a complex of readymade things, but as a complex of processes, in which the things apparently stable no less than their mind images in our heads, the concepts, go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being and passing away, in which, in spite of all seeming accidentally and of all temporary retrogression, a progressive development asserts itself in the end - this great fundamental thought has, especially since the time of Hegel, so thoroughly permeated ordinary consciousness that in this generality it is now scarcely ever contradicted. …” Frederick Engels Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy Part 4: Marx

Great illumination

🙌🏾

Does anyone know where we can find the next classes?

So...is "background...Being as a human built construct (cultural practices right down to the level of hammering) in that it's the fundamental human based social world? In other words, is the Being we as humans can access essentially our own collection of practices passed on as inherent culture and language that each of us inherit ready made by our own hands? Or is there a non-Human Being that is unapproachable to us if it doesn't first approach us? I note that Dreyfus, whom I love and admire, doesn't mention Karl Rahner, arguably the most important theologian of the last century, as being influenced by Heidegger . Rahner studied with Heidegger along with Gadamer. Dreyfus doesn't "get" Christianity: fair enough! Rahner has a different take on 'background" that goes beyond our human inherited cultural practices.

Chance in "Being There" by Jerzy Kosinski does not have a narrator of his inner dialogue. He seems to be just reactive. He is like Siri the "A.I.", he responds but he doesn't understand. The self absorbed characters he gets involved with do not possess the intelligence or attention to challenge his "inane" responses. To even realize his responses are "inane" or non-sequitur.

How is the idea “skilled “ determined?