On Tue, 28 Nov 1995, oliver wrote:
> there seems to be a very clear "reason" for use of the nothing in "what is
> metaphysics". in B&T, the moment of anxiety is the occasion for dasein's
> recognition of the ready-to-handedness of things. as the r-t-hness of
> things recedes, things offer themselves as possibilities (both as future
> things to take up and the roles that taking up such things brings along
> with it). the nothing in WIM plays almost the same role as death does in
> B&T. it is what things recede into, it is what repells beings that are in
> retreat, and it then sets in relief, not possibilities for dasein, but
> being as such. nothingness, by serving as a background or context for the
> being of things, brings us before (for the first time) being as such.
Hi Oliver!
Thanks for the two cents, worth a million in these parts!
Yes, It seems that nothingness receives a much more positive account in
other works, and this is why I find the account in B&T *so* unsatisfying.
I know all about existential angst, please believe me; and although this
is not to be denied, it is not even the point, or what is at issue in
being a Being constituted by care. Don't you agree?
> maybe i havnt answered the question. sorry if i have gone off on an
> unrelated topic, but as i understand it, these earlier notions arent so
> separated from the later formulations. come to think of it, this post is
> probably not pertinent at all.
It is the relationship between these varying notions of nothingness which
intrigue me. Like sisters, related but remarkably different!
If anyone out there has some secondary sources for me, I will be glad to
run and check them out!
rita ;)
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---