ethan,
If I understand correctly your last post seems to be describing
taking over fallenness (or thrownness which can indeed also be 'taken
over') as escaping from fallenness or more to the letter of your
text escaping our predetermined possibilities,. This would
be contradictory but it is not I think what taking over (hinubernehmen?
>from memory) means which has rather the sense of taking account of
assuming, taking responsibility for; discussion on the more exact
sense of this process would I think be valuable (might quicly
show it not to be a 'process', doesnt sound like a useful pro-verb
here).
What does seem to me contradictory in the text is the other issue
you have raised as to the relation of authentic and fallen existence.
Babette Babich's post only tells half the story here. Thus, for example,
on p.312 of the english text Heiedegger states that 'Authentic being
one's self takes the definite form of an existentielle modification
of the they'. Thuss as in the quote offered by babette authenticity
here appears as a modification of inauthenticity; but then the apparent
opposite is stated on p.365 where the they-self is said to be
an existentielle modification of the authentic self. It would be
a challenging hermeneutic exercise to reconcile these two; they
seem to describe a revolving door situation - may be the main
point is that neither is a structure which exists in itself
as a foundational moment but that each alqways relates to another
possibility of which it is the modification.
Mark Hewson
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
If I understand correctly your last post seems to be describing
taking over fallenness (or thrownness which can indeed also be 'taken
over') as escaping from fallenness or more to the letter of your
text escaping our predetermined possibilities,. This would
be contradictory but it is not I think what taking over (hinubernehmen?
>from memory) means which has rather the sense of taking account of
assuming, taking responsibility for; discussion on the more exact
sense of this process would I think be valuable (might quicly
show it not to be a 'process', doesnt sound like a useful pro-verb
here).
What does seem to me contradictory in the text is the other issue
you have raised as to the relation of authentic and fallen existence.
Babette Babich's post only tells half the story here. Thus, for example,
on p.312 of the english text Heiedegger states that 'Authentic being
one's self takes the definite form of an existentielle modification
of the they'. Thuss as in the quote offered by babette authenticity
here appears as a modification of inauthenticity; but then the apparent
opposite is stated on p.365 where the they-self is said to be
an existentielle modification of the authentic self. It would be
a challenging hermeneutic exercise to reconcile these two; they
seem to describe a revolving door situation - may be the main
point is that neither is a structure which exists in itself
as a foundational moment but that each alqways relates to another
possibility of which it is the modification.
Mark Hewson
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---