Thank you for your interest and support; I'll keep going round my circle =
- and Heidegger's, of course. I'm glad to find the temporary dizziness =
normal.
>My point is that WE DO NOT have direct knowledge of our own eventual
>deaths. We SAY THE WORDS (which might have *nothing* to do with
>understanding that we die), and we might even see those around us die. =
As a
>matter of fact, it is quite easy to note that OTHERS die, but one's
>mortality is something which can only very indirectly be symbolized. (I
>include those who have had a near-death experience.) In the existential =
way
>that Heidegger was talking about, I believe that it is precisely this =
which
>people never come to compredend and end up dying just a stupidly as the
>lowliest animal - never really comprehending what is taking place and =
what
>it means to die.
Jeff, as I've understood Heidegger, the knowledge of our death is prior =
to any experience of life, so it has nothing to do with the saying of =
these words *I die* - that would be another idle talk. I think it's =
wrong to identify Dasein with biological man. Dasein is dying all =
through its life in the anticipation of the coming end (Rita is right =
here), and even when the biological body is dead Dasein is in a way =
still living in the memories of other people, in Mitdasein. So we =
mustn't interpret Dasein's death as a coming event that ends a =
biological life. It brings us to deeper problem whether man can live =
'just as stupidly as the lowliest animal' - Heidegger seems to be saying =
that it's not possible. Most inauthentic way of being always includes a =
possibility for authenticity, and Dasein stays in the middle of the =
_spiel_ of these two.
Triin
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
- and Heidegger's, of course. I'm glad to find the temporary dizziness =
normal.
>My point is that WE DO NOT have direct knowledge of our own eventual
>deaths. We SAY THE WORDS (which might have *nothing* to do with
>understanding that we die), and we might even see those around us die. =
As a
>matter of fact, it is quite easy to note that OTHERS die, but one's
>mortality is something which can only very indirectly be symbolized. (I
>include those who have had a near-death experience.) In the existential =
way
>that Heidegger was talking about, I believe that it is precisely this =
which
>people never come to compredend and end up dying just a stupidly as the
>lowliest animal - never really comprehending what is taking place and =
what
>it means to die.
Jeff, as I've understood Heidegger, the knowledge of our death is prior =
to any experience of life, so it has nothing to do with the saying of =
these words *I die* - that would be another idle talk. I think it's =
wrong to identify Dasein with biological man. Dasein is dying all =
through its life in the anticipation of the coming end (Rita is right =
here), and even when the biological body is dead Dasein is in a way =
still living in the memories of other people, in Mitdasein. So we =
mustn't interpret Dasein's death as a coming event that ends a =
biological life. It brings us to deeper problem whether man can live =
'just as stupidly as the lowliest animal' - Heidegger seems to be saying =
that it's not possible. Most inauthentic way of being always includes a =
possibility for authenticity, and Dasein stays in the middle of the =
_spiel_ of these two.
Triin
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---