Ethan,
Perhaps you could explain your statement that "authenticity
requires man to become indifferent to his falling." Is this something
that you found in Dreyfus, or could you point to a passage from Being and
Time which you are interpreting this way? I think that this claim is the
root of the difficulty you are having.
In the subject line you ask: must we fall?
As Heidegger says, "Falling reveals an essential ontological
structure of Dasein itself." (B&T p.224)
He also says that "authentic existence is not something which
floats above falling everydayness; existentially, it is only a modified
way in which such everydayness is seized upon."
Two sources that may be helpful to you:
Christopher Fynsk's book Heidegger Thought and Historicity
(particularly Chapter One)
and a brief discussion of falling on page 40 of Reading Heidegger
>from the Start (ed. T. Kisiel) see the essay by Oudemans.
Hope this helps.
Sarah Heidt
On Sat, 25 Nov 1995, Ethan J.M. Leib wrote:
>
> I'm wondering how to resolve a paradox that few scholars consider a
> paradox. If Dasein is necessarily existentially composed of
> understanding/existence, falling, and throwness, then it sems that falling
> is part of his existential makeup. This is difficult only because
> authenticity requires man to become indifferent to his falling. And if he
> is indifferent to his existential makeup, how can we consider him authentic
> Dasein, whose being is necessarily an issue for him. Dreyfus tries to
> distinguish b/w falling and being fallen into das man, but this distinction
> is Dreyfus' own superimposition. If the way we fall is the content of
> authenticity, and the authentic way of falling is to overcome it, then I do
> not see how falling can be a part of our existential makeup. If we are to
> become resolute to our anxiety about falling, then to what extent must we
> fall? Help please......
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Ethan Leib (Yale '97).....ethan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Man is timid and apologetic; he is no longer upright; he dares not say "I
> think," "I am," but quotes some saint or sage.
> -Emerson, "Self-Reliance"
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Perhaps you could explain your statement that "authenticity
requires man to become indifferent to his falling." Is this something
that you found in Dreyfus, or could you point to a passage from Being and
Time which you are interpreting this way? I think that this claim is the
root of the difficulty you are having.
In the subject line you ask: must we fall?
As Heidegger says, "Falling reveals an essential ontological
structure of Dasein itself." (B&T p.224)
He also says that "authentic existence is not something which
floats above falling everydayness; existentially, it is only a modified
way in which such everydayness is seized upon."
Two sources that may be helpful to you:
Christopher Fynsk's book Heidegger Thought and Historicity
(particularly Chapter One)
and a brief discussion of falling on page 40 of Reading Heidegger
>from the Start (ed. T. Kisiel) see the essay by Oudemans.
Hope this helps.
Sarah Heidt
On Sat, 25 Nov 1995, Ethan J.M. Leib wrote:
>
> I'm wondering how to resolve a paradox that few scholars consider a
> paradox. If Dasein is necessarily existentially composed of
> understanding/existence, falling, and throwness, then it sems that falling
> is part of his existential makeup. This is difficult only because
> authenticity requires man to become indifferent to his falling. And if he
> is indifferent to his existential makeup, how can we consider him authentic
> Dasein, whose being is necessarily an issue for him. Dreyfus tries to
> distinguish b/w falling and being fallen into das man, but this distinction
> is Dreyfus' own superimposition. If the way we fall is the content of
> authenticity, and the authentic way of falling is to overcome it, then I do
> not see how falling can be a part of our existential makeup. If we are to
> become resolute to our anxiety about falling, then to what extent must we
> fall? Help please......
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Ethan Leib (Yale '97).....ethan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Man is timid and apologetic; he is no longer upright; he dares not say "I
> think," "I am," but quotes some saint or sage.
> -Emerson, "Self-Reliance"
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---