Christian,
Okay, I read over all the stuff and, so that I don't have to make a twenty K
reply here are some comments. Sorry that they are not longer but there is a
space and time consideration tonight. :)
You are right, the word "entity" does have too much metaphysical weight to
be a clear word at times. You are also correct that using "entity" might
invoke the spectre of "substance" but, in a sense, I doubt that would be
wrong. After all, what standard metaphyicisians had, (ie. "substance") does
exists (entity) depending, of course on what they called "substance". I,
however, meant "entity" only as that thing which has Being (Being must be
the Being of a being - and all that stuff - please note the capitals, if you
would prefer, existance must be the existance of an entity).
NOTE: I think I understand what you meant (and Heidegger meant) by "Reflect
theoretically". I was reading too much "scientist/metaphysician" stuff into
it when you wrote it and forgetting that MH himself uses it. Sorry.
>I think here is a confusion because of the language. But: there is an
>important transition at the beginning of chapter two in B&T. In u46
>(at the end of this paragraph), Heidegger writes: existentiell means
>the possibility to be as "whole" Being (shit, my words...) and
>existential is the question of the "Seinsverfassung" (I need the
>translation of B&T, now!!...). "Existentiell" has nothing to do with
>"inauthentic"!!!!
Do you mean where he says: "This question - both the existeniell question of
whether a potentiality-for-Being-a-whole is possible, and the existential
question of the state-of-Being of 'end' and 'totality'- is one...". That is
the only thing I could find that sounds like what you are saying and, at
least in English, I would not give it the interpretation you have given it.
Seeing as I could be in the wrong spot, however, it can wait until after the
weekend. :)
Perhaps I link the existential with the authentic and the existeniell with
the inauthentic too closely.
>Oh, heaven, it have to sound crazy for you. Perhaps I try it later
>again when I will have heard your critic, that throws me down....(I
>get bogged down...)
Me too (getting bogged down), and I am afraid that I have not helped a lot
with my comments. I placed too much trust in Gelven's (M. Gelven wrote what
is basically a cheat sheet to B&T) little chart at the begining of his book
and managed to read over some important stuff (obviously).
I just re-read (and re-re-read ad nauseum) Heidegger's page 12. It
seems to me that existentiell is still related to the ontic and inauthentic
while existential is related to the analytic, Being and Authenticity (this
is not explicitly stated on page 12).
I know that this is all confused and bass aackward in places but can
these terms not be separated into groups (ontological, authentic,
existential AND ontic,inauthentic, existentiell - or does existentiell not
belong?). Heidegger says (still on H.12) that: "The question of existence
never gets straitened out except through existing itself. The understanding
of oneself which leads *along this way* we call 'existentiell'". Now if he
is going to separate out "understanding" as a term (projecting possibilities
and that stuff - excuse my shorthand-ness but it *is* late) that is an
existenial of Dasein, then would not the existentiell understanding be more
of an ontic, inauthentic "what" than an ontological, authentic "how"?
Or am I waaay off base (like in the outfield)?
>Thank you for your explanation, "subjektivism" is the better word.
egopocentric? Sunjectopocentric? :)
I hope my comments made *some* sense. At least enough for you to point out
problems. :)
-Nik
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Okay, I read over all the stuff and, so that I don't have to make a twenty K
reply here are some comments. Sorry that they are not longer but there is a
space and time consideration tonight. :)
You are right, the word "entity" does have too much metaphysical weight to
be a clear word at times. You are also correct that using "entity" might
invoke the spectre of "substance" but, in a sense, I doubt that would be
wrong. After all, what standard metaphyicisians had, (ie. "substance") does
exists (entity) depending, of course on what they called "substance". I,
however, meant "entity" only as that thing which has Being (Being must be
the Being of a being - and all that stuff - please note the capitals, if you
would prefer, existance must be the existance of an entity).
NOTE: I think I understand what you meant (and Heidegger meant) by "Reflect
theoretically". I was reading too much "scientist/metaphysician" stuff into
it when you wrote it and forgetting that MH himself uses it. Sorry.
>I think here is a confusion because of the language. But: there is an
>important transition at the beginning of chapter two in B&T. In u46
>(at the end of this paragraph), Heidegger writes: existentiell means
>the possibility to be as "whole" Being (shit, my words...) and
>existential is the question of the "Seinsverfassung" (I need the
>translation of B&T, now!!...). "Existentiell" has nothing to do with
>"inauthentic"!!!!
Do you mean where he says: "This question - both the existeniell question of
whether a potentiality-for-Being-a-whole is possible, and the existential
question of the state-of-Being of 'end' and 'totality'- is one...". That is
the only thing I could find that sounds like what you are saying and, at
least in English, I would not give it the interpretation you have given it.
Seeing as I could be in the wrong spot, however, it can wait until after the
weekend. :)
Perhaps I link the existential with the authentic and the existeniell with
the inauthentic too closely.
>Oh, heaven, it have to sound crazy for you. Perhaps I try it later
>again when I will have heard your critic, that throws me down....(I
>get bogged down...)
Me too (getting bogged down), and I am afraid that I have not helped a lot
with my comments. I placed too much trust in Gelven's (M. Gelven wrote what
is basically a cheat sheet to B&T) little chart at the begining of his book
and managed to read over some important stuff (obviously).
I just re-read (and re-re-read ad nauseum) Heidegger's page 12. It
seems to me that existentiell is still related to the ontic and inauthentic
while existential is related to the analytic, Being and Authenticity (this
is not explicitly stated on page 12).
I know that this is all confused and bass aackward in places but can
these terms not be separated into groups (ontological, authentic,
existential AND ontic,inauthentic, existentiell - or does existentiell not
belong?). Heidegger says (still on H.12) that: "The question of existence
never gets straitened out except through existing itself. The understanding
of oneself which leads *along this way* we call 'existentiell'". Now if he
is going to separate out "understanding" as a term (projecting possibilities
and that stuff - excuse my shorthand-ness but it *is* late) that is an
existenial of Dasein, then would not the existentiell understanding be more
of an ontic, inauthentic "what" than an ontological, authentic "how"?
Or am I waaay off base (like in the outfield)?
>Thank you for your explanation, "subjektivism" is the better word.
egopocentric? Sunjectopocentric? :)
I hope my comments made *some* sense. At least enough for you to point out
problems. :)
-Nik
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---