> Sue me for being a pig-headed, stubborn fool, but hey, each
> Dasein has to forge its own path, right? I mean my being in the world
> isn't your being in the world, nor could it be vice versa, right?
> So my question is this: Given everything that Dasein stands for,
> it attempts to be the authentic being in the world of temporality,
> how is it that the man who coined this philosophy is somehow miraculously
> distanced from it at the same time? I mean how dare any of us say that
> Heidegger the man was radically different from Heidegger the philosopher,
> for if we make such an assertion aren't we just denying everything that
> _Being and Time_ was written for? I mean Heidegger is giving the world
> his theory on BEING for crying out loud, its fallible, but to say that
> the author's being has no impact upon the tone of Being in the book is
> preposterous, was Heidegger like Moses in that he transcribed what God
> was dictating?
It is truly amazing to study the movement of this argument. First the writer states
that his In-der-Welt-Sein is not my In der Welt-sein, and then he goes on to say that
Heidegger is inseparable from his work. So what if he is? The argument by itself
gives one possible (and good?) answer to this pseudoproblem: My In-der-Welt-Sein
need not be contaminated by the alleged crimes of Heideggers In-der-Welt-Sein, since
"my being in the world isn't your being in the world". One would like to add that my being
in the world isn't Heideggers being in the world. There is no need
to separate the man and the philosopher, since there is already a
distinct difference between the man and any Other.
Arguments of this kind strike me as peculiar, and deeply sad, since they
seem to show that it is much easier to judge and condemn than to try to understand. They reflect
a view of the human psyche that is much to simplistic. Why couldn't I be a massmurderer and
yet write beautiful poetry? Would my crimes color my poetrty by any mysterious means?
That the man and the philosopher are one - if one wishes to draw that conclusion -
in no way shows that man and/or philosopher is simple to understand and easy to decipher. One must allow even philosophers
to take part in the complexity of human behaviour, I think.
I am posting this to the list rather than to the person who wrote it, since I do not (and
this is important) consider this an answer in any way, I merely want to know
if this kind of argument - as quoted above - is usual, and if I perhaps have missed
something of importance in this discussion.
With humblest regards
Nicklas Lundblad
(nicklas.lundblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---