Christian,
This is in your response to anthony and I just want to ask some qusetions
about it before everything goes crazy.
>First: I think, in my view, you misunderstand "Dasein". Dasein is a
>title (and structure) to explain, how existence *is*. Dasein is
>related to existentiell and existential mode of existence. But there
>is no difference between existentiell and existential, because we can
>only execute us in existentiell mode and reflect theoretical the
>existential mode.
I think I agree with you about Dasein being a structure and title(although I
had to read your first sentence about six times before I thought I knew
whyat you meant - not because of your English, I don't think, but because of
English itself). If I understand you correctly you mean that, in the
context of the ontology as a whole, Dasein is a structure which allows
Heidegger to examine "Being" (or attempt to examine, if you prefer). Are
you meaning to say by this that we are placing too much weight on the fact
that Dasein is "us"? I am not sure we are. While Dasein is a structure
used to explore "how existence is" (Being), it is also a entity (being) for
whom Being is a concern. It is more than just a structure it is an entity,
with existence, and Heidegger spends a lot of time explaining "how" this
entity *is* on his way to discussing *isness* itself.
As for Existeniell/existential I would place them the other way (I think -
although this may just be that pesky language barrier). I think we can only
"reflect theoretically" in the existentiell (inauthentic/ontic/"they-self")
mode and "execute us" (by which I am still taking you to mean "execute" in
the verb sense - and I like that use a lot) in both the existential and
existentiell modes of being or just in the existentiell alone (slipping
completely into inauthentic existence). Perhaps I am missing what you mean
by "execute" though.
>>All
>>equipment points towards Dasein, but does M.H. make it so from an egoism,
>>or does he justify this? Where?
>
>Could you explain what you mean with "egoism". I don't understand your
>note in this context. What has "egoism" (a moral (!!) category) to do
>with "All equipment points towards Dasein"???
I think "egoism" was being used here to mean "subjectivism" and not a
specifically "moral" context. That is equipment gains its eqipment-ness
>from Dasein (Man) and does this make Heidegger's work "egocentric"
(towards-the-self).
-Nik
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
This is in your response to anthony and I just want to ask some qusetions
about it before everything goes crazy.
>First: I think, in my view, you misunderstand "Dasein". Dasein is a
>title (and structure) to explain, how existence *is*. Dasein is
>related to existentiell and existential mode of existence. But there
>is no difference between existentiell and existential, because we can
>only execute us in existentiell mode and reflect theoretical the
>existential mode.
I think I agree with you about Dasein being a structure and title(although I
had to read your first sentence about six times before I thought I knew
whyat you meant - not because of your English, I don't think, but because of
English itself). If I understand you correctly you mean that, in the
context of the ontology as a whole, Dasein is a structure which allows
Heidegger to examine "Being" (or attempt to examine, if you prefer). Are
you meaning to say by this that we are placing too much weight on the fact
that Dasein is "us"? I am not sure we are. While Dasein is a structure
used to explore "how existence is" (Being), it is also a entity (being) for
whom Being is a concern. It is more than just a structure it is an entity,
with existence, and Heidegger spends a lot of time explaining "how" this
entity *is* on his way to discussing *isness* itself.
As for Existeniell/existential I would place them the other way (I think -
although this may just be that pesky language barrier). I think we can only
"reflect theoretically" in the existentiell (inauthentic/ontic/"they-self")
mode and "execute us" (by which I am still taking you to mean "execute" in
the verb sense - and I like that use a lot) in both the existential and
existentiell modes of being or just in the existentiell alone (slipping
completely into inauthentic existence). Perhaps I am missing what you mean
by "execute" though.
>>All
>>equipment points towards Dasein, but does M.H. make it so from an egoism,
>>or does he justify this? Where?
>
>Could you explain what you mean with "egoism". I don't understand your
>note in this context. What has "egoism" (a moral (!!) category) to do
>with "All equipment points towards Dasein"???
I think "egoism" was being used here to mean "subjectivism" and not a
specifically "moral" context. That is equipment gains its eqipment-ness
>from Dasein (Man) and does this make Heidegger's work "egocentric"
(towards-the-self).
-Nik
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---