At 02:41 AM 11/26/95 -0500, Sara L. Heidt wrote:
>
>Ethan,
>
> Are you saying:
> Falling is essential.
> Falling is inauthentic.
>
> Therefore (1) Authenticity/resoluteness is impossible. or (2)
>Heidegger says authenticity is possible, but I can't see how it could be,
>or (3) So can one be inauthentically resolute? or (4) Since authenticity
>is possible, falling must cease in authenticity. There are lots of
>twists to this problem, depending upon where you want to place the
>emphasis. Of course in Division One Heidegger is discussing everything in
>terms of undifferentiated and inauthentic dasein.
>
> My course is on the problem of metaphysics-- metaphysics as a
>problem. Pretty huge topic. I'll post my syllabus to the Yale info in
>the next few weeks.
>
> Sarah
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>
a
fall
(i)
n
g e wor f en [s]he it (is) : es[..]s ent eign (is)
o r
too
ou
fall
(i)
n
to
two
too ge [is] t h e/r r(i)ng
a
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>Ethan,
>
> Are you saying:
> Falling is essential.
> Falling is inauthentic.
>
> Therefore (1) Authenticity/resoluteness is impossible. or (2)
>Heidegger says authenticity is possible, but I can't see how it could be,
>or (3) So can one be inauthentically resolute? or (4) Since authenticity
>is possible, falling must cease in authenticity. There are lots of
>twists to this problem, depending upon where you want to place the
>emphasis. Of course in Division One Heidegger is discussing everything in
>terms of undifferentiated and inauthentic dasein.
>
> My course is on the problem of metaphysics-- metaphysics as a
>problem. Pretty huge topic. I'll post my syllabus to the Yale info in
>the next few weeks.
>
> Sarah
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>
a
fall
(i)
n
g e wor f en [s]he it (is) : es[..]s ent eign (is)
o r
too
ou
fall
(i)
n
to
two
too ge [is] t h e/r r(i)ng
a
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---